GIFT  OF 


Qihy  Students  of  medicine 
Should  Select  the 
fiomceopatbic  School 


"Che  prize  Gssay  in  the  Medical  Century  Competition  and 
the  Bssays  obtaining  Second  and  Chird  places* 


Copyright  1904   by  The  Medical  Century  Co. 


"By  Homoeopathic  medical  education  is  im- 
plied the  mental  habit  of  thinking  in  Homoeopathic 
language,  the  sine  qua  non  for  successful  practice." 


4 'If  any  prospective  medical  student  desires  to 
practice  tomorrow  what  he  learns  in  the  colleges 
today  he  must  be  trained  and  educated  in  a  Homoe- 
opathic school." 


"Our  colleges  are  under  the  supervision  of  the 
Intercollegiate  Committee  of  our  national  organiza- 
tion, the  American  Institute  of  Homoeopathy,  and 
in  them  is  taught  all  that  pertains,  to  the  great  field 
of  medical  learning  and,  in  addition  thereto,  Homoe- 
opathic medicine. " 


WHY  STUDENTS  OF  MEDICINE    SHOULD    SELECT  THE 
HOMOEOPATHIC  SCHOOL. 

BY  THOMAS  G.  M^CONKEY,  M.  D.,  SAN  FRANCISCO.  CAL. 

Every  year  over  5,000  young  men  and  women 
decide  upon  medicine  as  a  career.  Among  these 
there  must  be  many  who  are  undecided  which  school 
to  select,  with  which  to  become  identified,  and  who 
will  be  grateful  for  any  suggestions  that  may  aid 
them  in  making  a  decision. 

This  essay  is  written  to  present  some  of  the 
reasons  why  the  decision  should  be  for  the  homoeo- 
pathic school.  It  seems  also  fitting  to  speak  of  the 
importance  of  taking  the  medical  course  at  the  col- 
lege avowedly  teaching  the  homoeopathic  system; 
for  it  is  well  known  that  there  are  many  students 
who  believe  in  the  doctrine,  yet  take  their  medical 
course  in  one  of  the  old  school  colleges.  Mere  ac- 
cessibility accounts  for  this  in  most  cases,  but  this 
is  of  small  moment  when  compared  with  the  im- 
perative necessity  of  a  homoeopathic  medical  educa- 
tion. By  homoeopathic  medical  education  is  im- 
plied the  mental  habit  of  thinking  in  homoeopathic 
language,  the  sine  qua  nan  for  successful  practice. 
The  fact  that  some  of  the  most  illustrious  members 
of  the  school  have  been  graduates  of  old  school  col- 
leges does  not  militate  against  the  foregoing.  They 
became  worthy  disciples  of  Hahnemann  in  spite  of 
their  allopathic  teaching  rather  than  because  of  it. 

Fifty  years  ago  there  were  but  two  homoeo- 
pathic colleges,  and  these  with  limited  facilities 
and  no  prestige.  Today  there  are  twenty,  each 
of  a  high  standard,  furnishing  better  facilities 
for  obtaining  a  general  medical  education  than 
the  average  old  school  college.  There  are  probably 
few  if  any  allopathic  schools  with  superior  re- 
sources and  stronger  faculties  than  have  our  ho- 
moeopathic colleges.  The  American  Institute  of  Ho- 
moeopathy, which,  since  its  organization  in  1844,  has 
exercised  a  singularly  judicious  control  of  homoeo- 
pathic interests,  and  itself  has  grown  from  a  mem- 
bership of  forty  to  more  than  two  thousand,  is 


374417 


supreme  in  authority,  especially  in  the  matter  of 
medical  education.  It  was  the  pioneer  in  the  move- 
ment for  a  four  years'  medical  course,  and  for  a  high 
educational  standard  in  the  entrance  and  graduation 
requirements.  The  statement  that  the  standard  and 
teaching  is  of  a  higher  average  order  than  in  the  123 
allopathic  schools  is  well  within  the  truth.  These 
twenty  colleges  are  well  distributed  from  Boston  to 
San  Francisco,  and  are,  therefore,  easily  accessible. 
In  addition  there  are  in  the  United  States  eighty- 
four  general  hospitals,  sixty-one  private  hospitals, 
fifty-eight  sanatoriums,  fifty-six  dispensaries,  all 
avowedly  homoeopathic,  and  sixty-six  other  institu- 
tions, State,  municipal,  etc.,  wherein  homoeopathic 
treatment  is  employed.  Many  of  these  325  institu- 
tions, especially  the  general  hospitals,  require  resident 
physicians  or  internes  who  are  naturally  chosen  from 
the  graduating  classes  of  the  homoeopathic  colleges. 
The  motto  of  the  new  eductaion,  "We  learn  things 
by  doing  them,"  is  observed  in  a  medical  course  by 
the  opportunities  for  clinical  practice  by  the  student. 
The  smaller  classes,  besides  ensuring  a  much  closer 
personal  contact  with  the  professors  on  the  part  of  the 
student,  increase  not  only  the  chances  for  individual 
preferment  during  the  course,  but  for  hospital  and 
other  appointments  on  graduation. 

While  the  commercial  spirit  is  not  compatible  with 
the  sacred  and  philanthropic  character  of  the  medi- 
cal calling,  it  is  not  only  proper  for  the  student 
to  consider  the  bread  and  butter  aspect  of  the  ques- 
tion but  his  duty  as  well.  If  the  field  is  al- 
ready overcrowded,  he  owes  it  to  himself,  as"  well 
as  to  those  in  it,  to  choose  some  other  calling.  To 
the  question :  Is  the  medical  profession  overcrowded  ? 
there  can  be  but  one  answer.  If  we  take  the  total  of 
all  schools  there  is  a  great  surplusage  of  graduates 
every  year.  As  a  consequence,  many  are  obliged  to 
abandon  the  practice  in  spite  of  the  great  expendi- 
ture of  time  and  money  in  fitting  themselves  for  it. 
Many  others  with  an  income  less,  and  more  pre- 
carious than  that  of  a  skilled  workman  in  almost  any 
industry,  eke  out  an  unsatisfactory  existence.  This 
is  especially  true  in  the  cities.  But  in  spite  of  this 
recognized  excess  of  physicians  of  all  schools,  there 
seems  to  be  an  actual  dearth  of  homoeopathic  physi- 
cians. It  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  taken  up 


by  the  American  Institute  of  Homoeopathy  at  the 
Cleveland  meeting  in  June,  1902.  The  following 
quotation  from  the  Transactions  is  pertinent : 

"The  demand  for  homoeopathic  physicians 
throughout  the  United  States  far  exceeds  the  supply. 
Thousands  of  small  cities,  towns  and  villages  are  un- 
able to  secure  the  advantages  afforded  by  the 
homoeopathic  system  of  medical  practice.  Demands 
for  graduates  of  this  school  of  medicine  are  con- 
stantly reaching  our  twenty  medical  colleges.  The 
demands  for  physicians  come  from  every  State  in 
the  Union.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  Southern 
and  Southwestern  States,  into  which  thousands  of 
people  in  quest  of  pleasure,  health  and  business  are 
going  every  year.  The  American  Institute  of  Homoe- 
opathy, mindful  of  her  obligation  to  the  public,  not 
only  calls  attention  to  this  public  need,  but  also  to 
the  fact  that  there  are  twenty  medical  colleges  in 
the  United  States,  thoroughly  equipped  effectively 
to  teach  all  branches  of  medicine  and  the  science  and 
practice  of  Homoeopathy.  These  colleges  earnestly 
solicit  and  will  welcome  young  men  and  women  of 
good,  moral,  physical  and  mental  endowment,  pos- 
sessing a  high  school  education,  or  its  equivalent, 
with  an  elementary  knowledge  of  Latin.  Those  who 
come  from  districts  having  but  few  homoeopathic 
physicians  will  be  especially  welcome." 

In  view  of  the  general  impression  of  the  over- 
crowded condition  of  the  medical  profession,  this 
appeal  will  come  as  a  surprise  to  most  people.  But 
a  little  reflection  will  explain  this  seeming  anomaly. 
There  are  in  round  numbers  125,000  practicing  phy- 
sicians in  the  United  States,  according  to  Folk's 
Register.  Estimating  the  population  at  80,000,000, 
this  gives  one  physician  to  640  people.  Of  this  125,- 
ooo  about  15,000  are  of  the  homoeopathic  school,  or 
one  to  5,333  people.  In  some  communities  where 
Homoeopathy  has  been  adequately  represented  it  is 
not  unusual  to  find  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  population 
patrons  of  Homoeopathy.  And  what  is  very  signifi- 
cant there  will  be  a  larger  proportion  of  the  edu- 
cated, travelled  and  moneyed  classes  among  these. 
This  is  a  matter  of  observation  only,  but  it  is  prob- 
ably a  conservative  statement  of  the  case. 

In  1901  there  were  230  graduates  from  the 
homoeopathic  colleges.  This  number  is  not  ade- 


quate  to  make  up  the  loss  by  death  and  retirement 
from  various  causes  among  the  15,000  practitioners. 
Recalling  the  fact  that  there  are  thousands  of  com- 
munities in  the  country,  especially  in  the  South  and 
West,  that  is  virgin  soil,  as  far  as  Homoeopathy  is 
concerned,  the  official  appeal  quoted  should  not 
occasion  surprise.  Let  no  one  suppose  that  this  ap- 
peal was  prompted  by  any  feeling  that  Homoeopathy 
is  on  the  decline.  It  has  an  aggravating  way  of 
disappointing  its  enemies  in  this  respect.  During  its 
century  of  existence  it  has  been  the  unwilling  but 
imperturbed  patient  of  learned  doctors,  pronounc- 
ing audibly  the  gravest  prognoses,  times  without 
number ;  and  yet  never  before  has  its  influence  been 
so  potent  or  the  attitude  of  its  enemies  so  respectful. 
What  is  to  be  feared  is  a  partial  acceptance  of  the 
doctrine  resulting  from  a  superficial  study  and  a 
desire  to  engraft  it  on  old  school  therapeutics.  There 
is  a  hygienic  use  of  medicine  and  a  palliative  use  of 
medicine  that  is  perfectly  compatible  with  the 
homoeopathic  curative  use  of  medicine.  But  so-call- 
ed "rational  therapeutics"  and  homoeopathic  thera- 
peutics are  not  compatible.  He  who  attempts  to 
combine  them  betrays  at  once  his  unacquaintance 
with  the  spirit  of  the  homoeopathic  doctrine.  An 
authority  in  the  school  in  materia  medica  and 
therapeutics  has  said:  "The  college  must  take  the 
lead  in  presenting  Homoeopathy,  like  any  other 
natural  science,  as  a  series  of  independent  doctrines, 
as  a  philosophy.  I  deem  it  more  important  that  the 
student  should  be  thoroughly  grounded  in  the  under- 
lying principles  than  in  acquiring  a  stock  of  key- 
note symptoms,  important  and  essential  as  this  is." 

It  will  be  interesting  and  profitable  to  critically 
examine  some  of  these  underlying  principles  enunci- 
ated by  Hahnemann  in  the  light  of  our  present  knowl- 
edge. First  a  few  words  concerning  Hahne- 
mann and  his  medical  environment.  He  was  a  regu- 
larly educated  physician  of  great  learning  and  very 
uncommon  general  culture  and  literary  attainments. 
Sir  John  Forbes,  one  of  his  old  school  critics,  said 
of  him  in  1846,  three  years  after  Hahnemann's 
death;  when  the  opposition  to  Homoeopathy  was 
most  bitter: 

"No  candid  observer  of  his  actions,  or  candid 
reader  of  his  writings,  can  hesitate  for  a  moment  to 


admit  that  he  was  a  very  extraordinary  man,  one 
whose  name  will  descend  to  posterity  as  the  exclu- 
sive founder  of  an  original  system  of  medicine,  as 
ingenious  as  many  that  preceded  it,  and  destined, 
probably,  to  be  the  remote,  if  not  the  immediate, 
cause  of  more  important  fundamental  changes  in 
the  practice  of  the  healing  art  than  have  resulted 
from  any  promulgated  since  the  days  of  Galen  him- 
self. He  was  undoubtedly  a  man  of  genius  and  a 
scholar,  a  man  of  indefatigable  industry  and  daunt- 
less energy/' 

Hufeland,  the  Nestor  of  orthodox  medicine  in  Ger- 
many, spoke  of  him  in  1801  as  "one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished physicians  in  Germany."  Jean  Paul 
Richter,  a  contemporary,  speaks  thus :  "Hahnemann, 
that  rare  combination  of  philosophy  and  learning, 
whose  system  must  eventually  bring  about  the  ruin 
of  the  ordinary  receipt-crammed  heads,  but  is  still 
little  accepted  by  practitioners,  and  rather  shunned 
than  investigated." 

Hahnemann  by  general  consent  had  attained  a  po- 
sition in  the  profession  which  entitled  him  to  criticise 
prevailing  methods.  While  realizing  that  prevailing 
methods  in  general  did  more  harm  than  good,  he  was 
impressed  with  the  fact  that  there  were  certain  reme- 
dies used  in  certain  diseases  with  such  results  as  left 
no  room  for  doubt  that  in  these  cases  at  least  real 
cures  were  effected.  This  he  observed  in  the  use  of 
mercury  in  syphilis  and  Peruvian  bark  in  malaria,  or 
"marsh  fever,"  as  it  was  then  called.  Hahnemann, 
like  Bacon  and  Boyle  and  Sydenham  before  him, 
realized  the  immense  importance  of  increasing  the 
number  of  these  "specifics."  A  casual  observation 
in  Cullen's  Materia  Medica,  which  he  was  translat- 
ing, gave  him  the  clue  to  his  discovery  as  the  falling 
apple  did  to  Newton.  From  this  observation  it  oc- 
curred to  him  that  provings  of  drugs  upon  healthy 
persons  might  furnish  a  knowledge  of  their  specific 
properties ;  and  that  the  administration  of  drugs  in 
cases  presenting  symptoms  similar  to  those  the  drug 
produces  in  the  healthy  subject  might  be  the  law  of 
the  application  of  specifics.  His  hopes  of  rendering 
the  medical  art  more  simple  and  certain  were  raised, 
and  he  set  himself  with  "his  dauntless  energy  and 
indefatigable  industry"  to  collect  from  the  writings 
of  ancient  and  modern  medical  authors  all  the  in- 


stances  bearing  upon  the  subject,  and  to  verify  by 
instituting  experiments  first  upon  himself  and  then 
upon  other  healthy  persons  whom  he  could  per- 
suade to  join  him  in  these  self-sacrificing  labors. 
The  further  he  advanced  in  such  investigations  and 
inquiries  the  more  he  became  satisfied  of  the  exten- 
sive application  of  his  therapeutic  law. 

From  1790  to  1805,  fifteen  years  of  the  prime  of 
his  life,  were  devoted  to  constant,  exhausting  labors 
of  this  nature,  "for  when  we  have  to  do  with  an  art 
whose  end  is  the  saving  of  human  life  any  neglect 
to  make  ourselves  master  of  it  is  a  crime."  Actuated 
by  that  noble  sentiment,  sure  of  the  truth  of  the 
great  principle  he  had  discovered — with  all  the  in- 
cidental testimony  of  history  to  support  it — with 
the  positive  results  of  a  long  experience  to  confirm 
it,  he  presented  his  views  and  the  results  of  his 
labors  to  the  profession  in  an  essay  of  wonderful 
logical  power,  of  the  utmost  moderation  in  expres- 
sion, full  of  almost  tender  persuasion,  and  of  the 
noblest  enthusiasm. 

The  treatment  of  Hahnemann  by  his  colleagues 
for  attempting  to  give  certainty  and  precision  to 
therapeutics  forms  a  melancholy  chapter  in  the  his- 
tory of  medicine,  but  it  does  not  stand  alone.  Harvey 
was  denounced  as  a  quack  and  even  held  to  be 
demented  because  he  demonstrated  the  circulation 
of  the  blood.  His  book  announcing  his  discovery 
was  unable  to  pass  censorship  in  England,  and, 
therefore,  appeared  in  a  foreign  country.  Syden- 
ham  also  was  calumniated  for  efforts  to  improve 
the  medical  art.  Hahnemann's  teaching  was  even 
more  revolutionary  than  either  Harvey's  or  Syden- 
ham's,  for  its  success  meant  the  annihilation  of  all 
the  cherished  methods  of  traditional  medicine.  He 
begged  his  colleagues  to  investigate  it,  and  if  it 
were  found  better  than  the  old  method  to  use  it  for 
the  good  of  mankind  and  to  give  God  the  glory. 
Instead,  they  called  him  an  impostor  and  attacked 
his.  character  and  his  motives. 

Time  has  shown  that  Hahnemann  was  right  in 
his  condemnation  of  the  practices  in  vogue  in  his 
time,  for  they  have  all  been  abandoned  or  are  in  pro- 
cess of  abandonment.  Up  till  the  year  1840,  seldom 
did  an  anti-homoeopathic  work  appear  which  did  not 
violently  reproach  Homoeopathy  for  its  rejection  of 


blood-letting.  But  let  an  old  school  authority  bear 
witness  to  the  influence  of  Hahnemann  in  reforming 
medicine.  In  1899  there  appeared  a  pamphlet  under 
the  imprint  of  the  American  Medical  Association 
which  was  sent  broadcast  over  the  country  with  the 
evident  purpose  of  dealing  the  "solar  plexus"  blow  to 
Homoeopathy.  It  attacks  the  personal  honesty  of 
Hahnemann  and  his  followers,  but  surprising  as  it 
may  appear  this  sentence  occurs :  "Homoeopathy  has 
done  a  noble  work ;  it  has  served  its  purpose  well. 
Look  back  a  hundred  years  to  the  time  of  its  birth, 
and  contrast  the  methods  of  practice  then  in  vogue 
with  those  which  are  in  favor  today,  and  tell  me 
whether  a  stupendous  revolution  has  not  been 
wrought,  and  largely  through  the  instrumentality 
of  Samuel  Hahnemann."  Evidently  the  value  of  the 
pamphlet  as  an  anti-homoeopathic  document  with 
such  a  sweeping  concession  lies  in  the  implied  in- 
ference that  Homoeopathy  as  a  medical  system  is  a 
"has  been." 

Dr.  William  Osier,  who  wrote  the  article  on  "Med- 
icine" in  the  New  York  Sun's  series  on  the  TQth 
century's  progress  in  great  subjects,  says :  "The 
century  has  witnessed  a  revolution  in  the  treatment 
of  disease  and  the  growth  of  a  new  school  of  medi- 
cine. The  old  schools,  regular  and  homoeopathic, 
put  their  trust  in  drugs,  to  give  which  was  the 
alpha  and  omega  of  their  practice.  For  every  «v nip- 
torn  there  was  a  score  of  medicines — vile,  nauseous 
compounds  in  one  case ;  bland,  harmless  dilutions  in 
the  other.  The  new  school  has  a  firm  faith  in  a  few 
good,  well-tried  drugs;  little  or  none  in  the  great 
mass  of  medicine  still  in  general  "use."  In  the  same 
article  he  attributes  "above  all  to  the  valuable  lesson 
of  Homoeopathy,  the  progress  in  the  battle  against 
polypharmacy  or  the  use  of  a  large  number  of  drugs 
(of  the  action  of  which  we  know  little,  yet  we  put 
them  into  bodies  of  the  action  of  which  we  know 
less)."  Hahnemann  in  1797  wrote:  "Is  it  well  to 
mix  various  drugs  in  a  single  prescription,  to  admin- 
ister baths,  clysters,  bleeding,  blistering,  fomentations 
and  inunctions  all  at  once  or  in  rapid  succession,  if 
we*  wish  to  raise  therapeutics  to  perfection,  effect 
cures,  and  know  with  certainty  in  every  case  what 
the  remedy  has  done  in  order  to  employ  it  in  similar 
cases  with  still  greater  or  at  least  with  equal  sue- 


cess  ?  How  can  we  complain  of  the  intricacy  of  our 
art  when  we  ourselves  render  it  obscure  and  intri- 
cate? I,  too,  at  one  time  suffered  from  this  in- 
firmity; the  schools  had  infected  me.  This  miasma 
clung  to  me,  before  it  came  to  a  crisis,  more  obsti- 
nately than  the  miasma  of  any  other  mental 
malady."  This  miasma  has  clung  to  medicine  also 
more  obstinately  than  some  of  the  other  mental 
maladies,  for,  as  Dr.  Osier  says,  that  battle  "has  not 
been  fought  to  a  finish."  The  following  from  an 
editorial  on  Mono-  and  Polypharmacy  in  the  Phila- 
delphia Medical  Journal  of  January  10,  1903,  is  a 
hopeful  sign  of  the  present  trend:  "Many  modern 
physicians  have  fallen  into  the  habit  of  prescribing  a 
single  drug  and  depending  upon  it,  in  combination 
with  various  hygienic  and  dietetic  regulations.  Pre- 
scriptions of  single  drugs,  unfortunately,  unless 
combined  with  various  diluents,  are  not  imposing; 
but  this  is  a  matter  too  small,  really,  for  considera- 
tion. A  great  advantage  of  monopharmacy — if  we 
can  so  term  it — is  that  the  physician  learns  through 
his  own  experience  (and  this  is  practically  the  only 
way  he  can  learn)  to  use  drugs  with  accuracy  and 
success."  It  will  require  many  years* yet  before  the 
old  school  abandons  polypharmacy,  but  that  it  will, 
eventually,  seems  certain.  Hahnemann  in  the  pre- 
face to  his  Materia  Medica  Pura  said :  "The  day  of 
the  true  knowledge  of  medicines  and  the  healing 
art  will  dawn  when  physicians  shall  trust  the  cure 
of  complete  cases  of  disease  to  a  simple  medicinal 
substance  and,  when,  regardless  of  traditional  sys- 
tems, they  will  employ  for  the  extinction  and  cure  - 
of  a  case  of  disease  whose  symptoms  they  have  in- 
vestigated one  single  medicinal  substance  whose 
positive  effects  they  have  ascertained  which  can  show 
among  these  effects  a  group  of  symptoms  very  simi- 
lar to  those  presented  by  the  case  of  disease."  The 
dominant  school  has  ignored  this  teaching  of  Hahne- 
mann arid  sought  to  develop  a  science  of  thera- 
peutics along  other  lines,  and  with  what  results? 
Osier  has  already  been  quoted.  Here  is  Goodhart  in 
the  annual  address  on  medicine  before  the  1901  meet- 
ing of  the  British  Medical  Association : 

"Why  do  we  give  drugs?  Often  not  because  the 
disease  demands  them,  but  because  the  patient  is  not 
happy  until  he  gets  them ;  too  often  he  is  not  happy 

8  % 


then.  They  are  sometimes  given  to  hide  our  ignor- 
ance, I  fear,  or  to  mark  time  while  we  watch  and 
wait.  They  are  sometimes  given  as  a  gambler  on  the 
Exchange  speculates  in  futures,  an  enhanced  reputa- 
tion being  the  windfall  that  is  hoped  to  secure ;  and 
then  we  often  give  drugs  as  an  experiment  in  the 
hope  that  they  may  do  good."  Much  more  might  be 
quoted  from  these  and  others  very  high  in  the  coun- 
cils of  the  old  school  pointing  to  the  futility  of  giv- 
ing drugs  to  cure  disease  and  the  chaos  of  "rational" 
therapeutics.  It  is  not  surprising  that  "one  of  the 
most  striking  characteristics  of  the  modern  treat- 
ment of  disease  is  the  return  to  what  used  to  be  call- 
ed the  natural  methods,  diet,  exercising,  bathing 
and  massage,"  as  Dr.  Oskr  tells  us. 

So  skeptical  are  the  followers  of  "rational"  thera- 
peutics of  the  curative  value  of  drugs  that  they 
regard  the  confidence  of  the  homoeopathic  school  in 
drugs  as  a  case  of  self-deception.  They  would  at- 
tribute the  favorable  results  to  the  vis  medicatrix 
nature?,  which  the  "bland  and  harmless  dilutions" 
did  not  inhibit.  Dr.  Osier  says :  "Nobody  has  ever 
claimed  that  the  mortality  among  homoeopathic 
practitioners  was  greater  than  among  those  of  the 
regular  school."  Dr.  Osier  was  evidently  a  little 
careless  in  his  tenses  when  he  wrote  that  sentence. 
He  doubtless  meant  to  say  that  "Nobody  today 
claims,"  etc.,  instead  of  "has  ever  claimed,"  etc.  Sir 
James  Y.  Simpson,  in  1853,  published  a  book  of 
nearly  300  pages  with  the  title  "Homoeopathy ;  Its 
Tenets  and  Tendencies."  The  final  paragraph  reads 
thus :  "At  the  same  time  there  remains  behind  a  far 
more  serious  and  solemn  view  of  this  discreditable 
medical  charlatanry.  For,  in  relation  to  the  question 
of  Homoeopathy  and  infinitesmal  doses  as  actually 
applied  in  practice,  no  one  conversant  with  disease 
can  shut  his  eyes  to  the  dangers  of  the  system,  in  the 
way  of  omission  if  not  of  commission,  dangers  which 
were  lately  stated  in  the  following  forcible  terms  by 
Dr.  Williams,  a  gentleman  acknowledged  on  all 
hands  to  be  standing  in  the  foremost  rank  of  the 
London  physicians  of  the  present  day:  'You  see' 
(says  Dr.  Williams)  'all  sorts  of  quackery,  with  Ho- 
moeopathy foremost,  rampant  through  the  land,  de- 
luding by  its  unaccountable  infatuations,  the  power- 
ful, the  learned,  the  rich,  and,  worse  than  all,  the 


poor,  in  multitudes;  and  not  only  are  riches  placed 
at  the  command  of  the  instruments  of  these  fallacies, 
but  what  are  far  more  precious,  and  this  is  far  more 
terrible  to  contemplate — the  lives  of  our  fellow 
creatures.  In  fact,  there  is  at  this  moment  through- 
out this  country  an  awful  system  of  trafficking  or 
gambling  with  the  issues  of  life  and  death,  a  perilous 
tampering  with  the  elements  of  mortality;  nay,  a 
jeopardizing,  not  of  the  body  only,  but  even  of  the 
soul.  For  who  can  say  where  victims  are  hurried 
out  of  the  world  by  a  delusion,  and  for  want  of 
proper  treatment,  who  can  say  that  some  of  such 
might  not  have  been  saved  alive  and  given  time  for 
repentance  as  well  as  recovery?  It  is  altogether  an 
awful  consideration,  and  I  quite  shudder  when  I  look 
back  at  the  number  of  melancholy  cases  which  have 
come  to  my  knowledge,  where,  at  the  eleventh  hour, 
the  regular  practitioner  has  been  called  in  when  too 
late ;  when  the  precious  time,  in  which  medicine 
might  have  availed,  has  been  wasted  with  Ho- 
moeopathy ;  and  we  could  only  shake  our  heads,  and 
lift  up  our  hands,  and  exclaim,  Alas !  what  folly !  and 
I  fear  we  might  add,  what  knavery,  too !' '' 

This  needs  no  comment.  Its  mere  use  in  this 
essay  is  the  most  eloquent  commentary  that  could  be 
offered  of  the  changed  conditions  which  fifty  years 
have  brought  about.  Fifty  years  hence  wlien  Ho- 
moeopathy will  be  dominant  it  will  excite  surprise 
that  Dr.  Osier  should  not  have  known  of  the  posi- 
tive value  of  Homoeopathy,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
century,  just  as  we  are  surprised  that  Sir  James  Y. 
Simpson  should  not  even  see  a  negative  value  in  it. 
If  Homoeopathy  had  been  the  "disreputable  medical 
charlatanry"  that  Sir  James  declared  it  to  be,  can  any 
one  believe  it  would  have  survived  through  the  cen- 
tury? Even  if  it  had  been  a  reaction  against  the 
prevalent  methods  of  the  time,  would  it  not  have 
ceased  to  exist  when  these  had  been  reformed? 
There  is  only  one  adequate  explanation  for  the  con- 
tinued vigorous  growth  of  Homoeopathy,  and  that 
was  enunciated  by  Hahnemann  himself  in  these 
words :  "Homoeopathy  is  a  simple  art  of  healing, 
unvarying  in  its  principles  and  its  methods  of  apply- 
ing them.  The  principles  upon  which  it  is  based,  if 
thoroughly  understood,  will  be  found  to  .be  perfect 
and  unassailable." 


10 


Let  us  examine  some  of  these  principles  as  laid 
down  by  Hahnemann.  "What  life  is  can  only  be 
known  empirically  from  its  phenomena  and  mani- 
festations, but  no  conception  of  it  can  be  formed  by 
any  metaphysical  speculation  a  priori;  what  life  is 
in  its  actual  essential  nature  can  never  be  ascer- 
tained or  even  guessed  at  by  mortals."  In  spite  of  the 
enormous  increase  of  our  knowledge  of  organs, 
tissues,  cells,  nuclei  and  protoplasm  since  that  was 
written,  it  still  remains  true.  We  know  that  every 
cell  is  from  a  cell,  and  every  nucleus  from  a 
nucleus,  and  that  protoplasm  is  the  physical  basis 
of  life,  but  of  the  actual  essential  nature  of  that  life 
we  are  still  ignorant. 

'To  the  explanation  of  human  life,  as  also  its  two- 
fold conditions,  health  and  disease,  the  principles  by 
which  we  explain  other  phenomena  are  quite  inap- 
plicable. The  material  substances  of  which  the  hu- 
man organism  is  composed  no  longer  follow,  in  this 
vital  combination,  the  laws  to  which  material  sub- 
stances in  the  inanimate  condition  are  subject;  they 
are  regulated  by  the  laws  peculiar  to  vitality  alone, 
they  are  themselves  animated  and  vitalized."  How 
prophetic  of  our  present  knowledge  of  the  living 
cell !  And  this  was  written  in  1813,  twenty-six  years 
before  Schwann  proposed  his  cell  theory  of  animal 
tissues.  Today  all  physiology  as  well  as  all  pa- 
thology is  merely  a  study  of  cellular  activities. 

"Now,  as  the  condition  of  the  organism  and  its 
health  depend  solely  on  the  health  of  the  life  which 
animates  it,  in  like  manner  it  follows  that  the 
altered  health,  which  we  term  disease,  consists  in  a 
condition  altered  originally  only  in  its  vital  sensi- 
bilities and  functions,  irrespective  of  all  chemical  or 
mechanical  considerations;  in  short,  it  must  consist 
in  a  dynamically  altered  condition,  a  changed  mode 
of  being,  whereby  a  change  in  the  properties  of  the 
material  component  parts  of  the  body  is  afterward 
effected."  Starting  from  purely  material  concep- 
tions, Hahnemann  gradually  arrived  at  dynamic 
views,  though  the  general  current  ran  in  the  con- 
trary direction  at  the  time.  "We  must  localize  dis- 
eases," that  is,  look  for  their  seat,  ran  the  general 
current,  and  we  owe  much  to  it,  for  modern  pa- 
thology had  its  beginning  in  this  effort,  the  beginning 
of  French  positivism  in  medicine.  Hahnemann  re- 

II 


garded  these  morbid  changes  as  the  effects  or  re- 
sults of  the  disease. 

"Diseases  must  be  considered  as  dynamic  de- 
rangements of  the  vital  character  of  our  organism; 
they  must  therefore  be  cured  by  agents  capable  of 
causing  dynamic  change." 

vSir  Andrew  Clark,  before  the  Clinical  Society  of 
London,  said :  "The  structural  change  is  not  dis- 
ease ;  it  is  not  coextensive  with  disease,  and  even  in 
those  cases  where  the  alliance  appears  the  closest 
the  statical  or  anatomical  relation  is  but  one  of  other 
effects  of  physiological  forces,  which,  acting  under 
unphysiological  conditions,  constitute  by  this 
new  departure  the  essential  and  true  disease.  For 
disease  in  its  primary  condition  and  intimate  nature 
is  in  strict  language  dynamic ;  it  precedes,  underlies, 
evolves,  determines,  embraces,  transcends  and  rules 
the  anatomical  state.  *  *  -  *  But  always  behind 
the  statical  lies  the  dynamic  condition.  He  could 
hardly  have  been  more  explicit  in  affirming  Hahne- 
mann's  teaching  if  that  had  been  his  purpose. 

The  following  from  the  London  Lancet,  of  Feb- 
ruary 24,  1900,  is  pertinent  also,  as  showing  that 
Hahnemann's  views  at  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  are  really  the  accepted  doctrines  of 
the  medical  profession  at  the  beginning  of  the 
twentieth  century.  "That  the  physician  has  to  study 
not  disease,  per  se,  but  the  diseased  man,  is  a  truth 
which  took  us  some  twenty-two  centuries  to  learn, 
but  which  Aristotle  knew  some  350  years  B.  C. 
Until  fifty  or  sixty  years  ago,  disease  was  regarded 
as  an  entity  distinct  from  the  body,  to  be  expelled 
from  it  by  drugs,  like  a  tapeworm,  whereas  we  now 
regard  it  as  a  state  affecting  the  entire  man,  body 
and  mind,  structure  and  function,  so  that  it  would  be 
more  correct  to  "say  that  he  is  the  disease  than  that 
he  has  'got'  it,  and  as  this  state  varies  with  the  con- 
stitution, inherited  tendencies,  antecedents  and  sur- 
roundings of  the  man,  it  requires  a  corresponding 
variety  of  treatment.  The  wise  physician  adapts  his 
treatment  to  each  patient's  peculiarities ;  to  one  he 
may  give  a  certain  drug,  to  another  with  the  same 
disease  a  different  one,"  etc. 

This  is  distinctly  homoeopathic  in  thought  and  lan- 
guage. Hahnemann  deserves  the  credit  of  having 
insisted  upon  the  strictest  individualization,  he 

12 


taught  it  systematically  in  his  numerous  works. 
"Totality  of  the  symptoms"  or  individualization  of 
the  disease  is  one  of  the  essential  tenets  of  Ho- 
moeopathy. Today  the  real  teachers  in  medicine  are 
seeing  disease  as  Hahnemann  saw  it.  Vierordt,  in 
his  Medical  Diagnosis,  says:  "The  objective  point 
of  the  physician's  investigations  at  the  bedside  is 
therefore  an  individual  diagnosis ;  first,  on  purely 
scientific  grounds,  but  still  more  important  from  the 
practical  consideration  that  it  must  form  the  indis- 
pensable basis  for  individualizing  the  treatment. 
*  *  For  example,  it  is  positively  asserted  that 
the  exciting  cause  of  a  lung  disease  is  the  tubercle 
bacillus,  but  this  says  nothing  of  the  disease,  tuber- 
culous phthisis,  which  is  present.  In  order  to  dis- 
cover this  the  patient  must  be  examined.  *  *  * 
But  nowadays  it  suffices  for  many,  unfortunately,  to 
find  the  bacilli  in  the  sputum.  *  *  *  The  indi- 
vidual diagnosis  can  never  be  made  at  the  study 
table,  but  only  and  always  at  the  bedside,  and  there 
by  a  sort  of  artistic  construction  of  the  complete  pic- 
ture of  the  disease  out  of  its  collective  phenomena, 
anatomical  and  functional."  "We  must  individualize 
the  case."  And  this  also  from  the  preface :  "And  then 
a  study  of  the  whole  organism,  the  totality  of  the 
picture  of  the  disease."  The  phraseology  suggests 
that  he  had  been  reading  Hahnemann. 

"Now  because  diseases  are  only  dynamic  derange- 
ments of  our  health  and  vital  character  they  cannot 
be  removed  by  man  otherwise  than  by  means  of 
agents  and  powers,  which  are  also  capable  of  pro- 
ducing dynamical  derangements  of  the  human 
health ;  that  is  to  say,  diseases  are  cured  virtually 
and  dynamically  by  medicines."  Thus. Hahnemann 
clearly  states  the  corollary  to  the  dynamic  theory 
of  disease.  If  any  Sir  Andrew  Clark  has  affirmed 
this  it  has  not  come  under  my  notice.  The  nearest 
approach  to  it  that  I  have  seen  is  a  paper  by  Dr. 
Baradat  before  the  British  Tuberculosis  Congress, 
July,  1901,  on  the  use  of  natural  goat  serum  in  the 
treatment  of  tuberculosis.  "The  use  of  natural 
serum  has  given  me  unexpected  results.  Natural 
serum  seems  to  fulfill  all  the  required  conditions, 
for  it  is  both  dynamic  and  bactericidal.  We  find 
that  a  very  small  quantity  produces  an  intense  thera- 
peutic effect.  There  is  here  a  quid  divivum  due 

13 


evidently  to  the  intimate  composition  of  natural 
serum.  No  one  nowadays  denies  the  dynamo- 
genetic  action  of  serum — it  is  a  recognized  fact. 
Whilst  awaiting  experiments  destined  to  throw  light 
on  the  obscure  question  of  the  mode  of  action  of 
serums,  we  give  preference  to  the  theory  pro- 
pounded by  Metchnikoff,  who  looks  upon  them  not 
as  antitoxic,  but  as  stimulating  agents  of  phagocy- 
tosis; in  other  words,  as  stimulants,  provokers  of 
organic  resistance." 

Serum  therapy,  or  medication  by  curative  or  pro- 
tective serums,  is  a  new  art  in  the  healing  of  disease 
of  which  much  is  hoped.  Is  it  consistent  with  Ho- 
moeopathy? Dr.  Baradat  told  us  that  it  is  dynamic 
in  its  action.  Hahnemann  told  us  that  this  is  the 
only  way  diseases  are  cured.  The  word  "dynamic" 
as  applied  to  a  remedy  is  very  new  in  the  literature 
of  "rational  therapeutics."  These  "anti-toxins"  (a 
misnomer,  suggested  evidently  by  a  materialistic 
conception  of  their  action)  are  obtained  from  men 
or  animals  sick  with  a  similar  disease.  That  does 
not  sound  entirely  inconsistent  with  Homoeopathy. 
It  is  surely  more  in  accord  with  similia  similibus 
than  contraria  contrariis.  If  then  remedies  may  be 
curative  in  bacterial  diseases,  not  because  of  any 
antiseptic  or  anti-toxic  quality,  but  because  of  their 
dynamic  action,  the  germ  theory  of  disease  so  far 
from  being  subversive  of  Homoeopathy  is  actually 
confirmatory.  Hahnemann  anticipated  the  germ 
origin  of  at  least  one  disease,  for  he  says,  literally: 
"On  board  ships — in  whose  confined  spaces,  filled 
with  mouldy,  watery  vapors,  the  cholera  miasm, 
finds  a  favorable  element  for  its  multiplication,  and 
grows  into  an  enormously  increased  brood  of  those 
excessively  minute  invisible,  living  creatures,  so  in- 
imical to  human  life,  of  which  the  contagious  mat- 
ter of  the  cholera  most  probably  consists."  Notwith- 
standing this  conception  of  the  exciting  cause  of  the 
disease,  after  reading  a  description  of  the  symptoms, 
he  predicted  the  remedies  for  the  various  stages. 
These  were  used  with  such  brilliant  results  that  it 
forms  one  of  the  most  gratifying  incidents  in  the 
history  of  Homoeopathy.  One  effect  was  the  re- 
pealing of  the  law  prohibiting  the  practice  of  Ho- 
moeopathy in  Austria. 

"As  little  as  we  mortals  understand  the  economy 

14 


of  healthy  life,  and  as  surely  as  it  must  ever  be  hid- 
den from  us,  so  impossible  it  will  ever  be  for  us  to 
understand  the  internal  processes  of  disturbed  life 
in  diseases.  The  internal  process  of  diseases  is  only 
manifested  by  those  observable  changes,  complaints 
and  symptoms  through  which  alone  life  expresses 
its  inner  disturbances,  so  that  in  every  case  we  must 
remain  unable  to  determine  which  of  the  morbid 
symptoms  are  primary  effects  of  the  morbific  agency, 
or  which  are  to  be  considered  as  the  reaction  of  vital 
force  in  its  spontaneous  curative  efforts."  This  was 
written  by  Hahnemann  in  1813.  To  antagonize 
symptoms  has  been,  and  is,  the  practice  of  the  self- 
styled  "rational"  school  of  therapeutics.  Happily 
for  humanity  they  are  beginning  to  understand  that 
many  of  the  morbid  symptoms  in  disease  "are  to  be 
considered  as  the  reaction  of  vital  force  in  its  spon- 
taneous curative  efforts."  For  example,  we  now 
know  inflammation  to  be  a  conservative  process, 
"the  response  of  living  tissue  to  injury."  The  four 
classical  symptoms — dolor,  calor,  rubor,  tumor — 
have  a  new  reading  today,  and  for  this  we  are  in- 
debted to  many  investigators,  but  especially  to 
Metchnikoff.  As  Dr.  Andrew  Wilson  conservative- 
ly puts  it:  "Inflammation  is  thus  to  be  ranked,  not 
so  much  as  an  unnatural  process,  but  as  one  which 
has  a  true  physiological  significance,  in  that  it  be- 
gins at  least,  in  an  endeavor  on  the  part  of  the  leu- 
cocytes, to  save  us  from  the  consequences  of  infec- 
tion." 

Enlightened  physicians  are  beginning  to  see  that 
fever  is  something  that  is  not  always  to  be  an- 
tagonized. Bouchard,,  of  France,  recently  said: 
"There  is  a  certain  school  of  medicine  that  sees 
nothing  in  fever,  but  fever;  with  doctors  of  this 
class  the  thermometer  is  the  source  of  all  therapeu- 
tic indications ;  they  see  improvement  only  in  lower- 
ing the  temperature.  No  clinical  practitioner  can  ac- 
cept such  a  doctrine,  and  the  audacity  of  the  asser- 
tions of  the  school  in  question  has  given  rise  to  a  re- 
action in  the  opposite  direction,  in  Germany  as  well 
as  in  France.  Thus  we  now  see  the  current  of  med- 
ical opinion  take  a  new  course.  It  is  now  urged  that 
fever  may  do  some  good;  that  it  should  be  treated 
with  respect — a  theory  that  has  long  been  unheard 
of  in  the  medical  world.  We  may  say,  therefore, 

15 


that  it  indicates  the  gravity  of  the  disease,  but  does 
not  cause  it.  Elevation  of  the  temperature  an- 
nounces, but  does  not  constitute  the  danger." 

Friedlander  goes    farther  and  suggests    the  em- 
ployment of  artificial  fever  as  a  therapeutic  measure 
on  the  ground  that  it  represents  a  natural  process, 
which  serves  the  purpose  of  immunizing  and  elimi- 
nating pathological   materials,   like   bacterial   prod- 
ucts, etc.     He  was  able  to  show  an  increase  of  the 
leucocytes  up  to  25  per  cent,  after  intense  heat  in- 
fluences in  moist  media,  like  hot  'baths,  steam  baths, 
etc.     If  then  such  important    disease  processes    as 
fever  and  inflammation  are  to  be  considered  as  a 
"reaction  of  vital  force  in  its  spontaneous  curative 
efforts"  Hahnemann's  teaching,  that  prescribing  for 
single  symptoms  on  the  principle  of  contraries,  is 
"contrary  to  nature"  receives  striking  confirmation. 
Homoeopathy  has   been   willfully,   or   ignorantly, 
represented  as  ignoring  causes.     In  the  American 
Medical  Association  pamphlet  already  quoted  from, 
this  inference,  "Hence,  you  see,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  remove  causes,  nor  even  to  know  their  nature," 
pretends  to  be  a  logical  one  from  a  study  of  Hahne- 
mann's writings.     On  the  other  hand,   read  para- 
graph 7  of  the  Organon:  "In  a  disease  presenting 
no  manifest  exciting  or  maintaining  cause    (causa 
occasionalis)     for    removal,     [in    a    note    on    this 
Hahnemann  says:    "As  a  matter  of  course    every 
sensible  physician  will  remove  such  causes  at  first, 
after  which  the  illness  will  generally  subside  of  its 
own    accord."]    nothing    is    to    be    discerned    but 
symptoms.     These  alone   (with  due  regard  to  the 
possible  existence  of  some  miasm,  and  to  accessory 
circumstances)  must  constitute  the  medium  through 
which  the  disease  demands  and  points  out  its  cura- 
tive agent.     Hence  the  totality  of  these  symptoms, 
this  outwardly  reflected  image  of  the  inner  nature 
of  the  disease,  i.  e.,  of  the  suffering  vital  force,  must 
be  the  chief  or  only  means  of  the  disease  to  make 
known  the  remedy  necessary  for  its  cure,  the  only 
means  of  determining  the    selection  of  the  appro- 
priate remedial  agent." 

We  are  not  surprised  to  find  misrepresentation  in 
a  controversial  pamphlet,  but  the  historian  certain- 
ly should  be  guiltless  in  this  respect.  When  Ros- 
well  Park,  in  his  History  of  Medicine,  says  that 

16 


Hahnemann  "denied  disease,  admitting  only  symp- 
toms," he  either  willfully  misrepresents  or  betrays 
an  inexcusable  lack  of  acquaintance  with  his  sub- 
ject. When  it  was  no  longer  possible  to  deny  the 
truth  of  Harvey's  discovery  his  enemies  declared 
that  it  was  not  original  with  him.  Park  says  of 
Hahnemann:  "Similia  similibus  curantur  was  not 
original  with  him."  The  American  Medical  Asso- 
ciation pamphlet  says  on  the  same  subject :  "Let  me 
prove  to  you  by  quotations  garnered  by  the  late  Prof. 
A.  B.  Palmer  and  myself  that  the  so-called  'law  of 
similars'  was  common  property  hundreds  of  years 
before  Hahnemann  was  born."  This  laborious  gath- 
ering of  two  learned  professors,  resulted  in  finding 
quotations  from  four  medical  and  three  non-med- 
ical men,  viz. :  Hippocrates,  Paracelsus,  Valentine, 
Stahl,  Theophrastus,  Shakespeare  and  George 
Chapman.  Had  they  but  consulted  Hahnemann's 
introduction  to  the  Organon  they  would  have  rich 
"garnering,"  for  he  there  quotes  seven  medical  men, 
including  Hippocrates  and  Stahl,  "who  had  pre- 
sentiments that  medicines,  by  their  power  of  pro- 
ducing analogous  morbid  symptoms,  would  cure 
analogous  morbid  conditions."  If  they  had  then 
turned  to  the  note  on  these  quotations  they  would 
have  found  something  singularly  pertinent  from 
Hahnemann  himself.  Here  it  is:  "The  following 
quotations  from  authors,  having  a  presentiment 
of  Homoeopathy,  are  not  brought  forward  for  the 
purpose  of  proving  the  stability  of  this  doctrine, 
sufficiently  firm  in  itself,  but  they  are  introduced  to 
escape  the  accusation  of  having  ignored  these  pre- 
sentiments for  the  sake  of  the  credit  of  securing  the 
priority  of  the  idea." 

After  setting  up  this  man. of  garnered  straw  he  is 
knocked  down  (in  the  before-mentioned  pamphlet) 
in  this  fashion :  "It  cannot  in  reason  be  maintain- 
ed that  Hahnemann  had  never  read  of  the  doctrine 
of  similars,  for  he  was  a  man  of  great  literary  attain- 
ments, and  for  many  years  had  earned  his  living  by 
literary  work.  I  think  there  are  few  men  in  the 
world  today  as  well  versed  in  the  history  of  medi- 
cine as  Hahnemann  was.  It  was  not  ignorance 
then  which  led  him  to  claim  the  doctrine  of  simi- 
lars as  his  own  invention;  it  was  dishonesty.  It  is 
not  ignorance  on  the  part  of  Homoeopaths  of  today 

17 


which  leads  them  to  claim  the  doctrine  of  similars 
as  the  discovery  of  Etahnemann  and  the  peculiar 
and  exclusive  property  of  their  sect ;  it  is  dis- 
honesty." Yes,  Hahnemann  was  so  well  "versed 
in  the  history  of  medicine"  that  he  anticipated  just 
such  an  accusation  and  left  a  reply  so  consummate- 
ly happy  as  to  make  his  unversed  accusers 
ridiculous. 

There  is  evidence  in  almost  any  old  school  Materia 
Medica,  especially  Ringer's,  that  a  sort  of  crude 
Homoeopathy  is  gradually  replacing  "scientific" 
therapeutics.  Either  these  are  arrived  at  as  the  re- 
sult of  observation  and  research,  or  taken  directly 
from  homoeopathic  sources.  But  in  either  case  they 
carefully  refrain  from  any  reference  to  the  law  of 
similars. 

Perhaps  the  chief  reason  why  therapeutics  has 
made  so  little  progress  in  the  old  school  during  the 
century  compared  with  the  other  medical  sciences  is 
that  it  has  been  a  mere  appendage  of  pathology.  It 
is  true  an  enormous  amount  of  work  has  been  done 
in  the  study  of  the  physiological  action  of  drugs, 
but  how  pitifully  inadequate  the  practical  fruits  of 
all  this  vast  labor!  It  would  be  interesting  to  know 
which  had  contributed  more  to  this  paucity  of  re- 
sults— the  absence  of  any  law  of  the  application  of 
this  knowledge  to  the  cure  of  disease,  or  the  fact 
that  it  has  been  obtained  for  the  most  part  by  gross 
experiments  on  the  lower  animals,  and  therefore  is 
not  always  applicable  to  the  human  organism?  The 
fact  that  they  have  been  "toiling  so  long  and  found 
so  little"  argues  the  want  of  a  true  science  of  thera- 
peutics. They  have  one  law,  contraria  contrariis, 
and  its  application  by  Brunton  in  the  use  of  Amyl 
nitrite  in  the  condition  known  as  angina  pectoris  is 
a  brilliant  example  of  prompt  palliative  treatment  by 
drugs.  Here  is  a  patient  with  intolerable  anguish 
and  pain  in  the  region  of  the  heart,  face  ashy  gray 
and  betraying  terror,  pulse  small  and  contracted 
and  surface  covered  with  coM  perspiration.  A  few 
drops  of  Amyl  nitrite  applied  to  the  nostrils  and  al- 
most immediately  his  face  begins  to  flush ;  he  warms 
up,  he  breathes  freely  and  the  intolerable  anguish 
is  gone.  This  palliative  use  of  a  drug  has  the  same 
relation  to  Homoeopathy  as  the  use  of  chloroform 
or  ether  as  general  anaesthetics. 

18 


The  accepted  definition  of  a  homoeopathic  physi- 
cian is  "one  who  adds  to  his  knowledge  of  medicine 
a  special  knowledge  of  homoeopathic  therapeutics 
and  observes  the  law  of  similia.  All  that  pertains 
to  the  great  field  of  medical  learning  is  his  by  tradi- 
tion, by  inheritance,  by  right."  He  does  not  need 
to  resort  to  palliative  measures  so  often  as  one  who 
knows  nothing  of  the  law  of  similars,  but  he  may 
avail  himself  of  every  real  aid  that  promotes  the 
comfort  or  cure  of  his  patient.  The  end  and  ob- 
ject of  the  medical  art  is  to  cure  disease.  Thera- 
peutics of  all  the  collateral  medical  sciences  which 
has  most  to  do  with  the  cure  of  disease  has  made 
little  or  no  progress  among  those  who  reject  Hahne- 
mann's  teaching.  It  is  anything  but  scientific. 
Therapeutics  is  the  strong  side  of  Homoeopathy.  It 
is  the  explanation  of  its  vigorous  existence  as  a  sep- 
arate school.  Is  not  the  conclusion  irresistible  that 
in  the  one  school  they  have  not  yet  got  hold  of  the 
right  clue, — of  the  true  philosophy  of  the  science? 
Hahnemann  arrived  at  the  doctrine  of  similia  simili- 
bus  curentur  .by  the  "exact"  methods  of  the  latter 
two-thirds  of  the  nineteenth  century,  though  his 
environment  was  of  the  speculative  spirit  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  which  overlapped  the  first  third 
of  the  nineteenth.  His  was  the  experimental  method. 
He  put  the  question  to  nature.  He  says :  "The  true 
physician  should  know  [regarding  the  action  of 
drugs],  first,  what  is  the  pure  action  of  each  by  it- 
self on  the  healthy  human  body?  secondly,  what  do 
observations  of  their  action  in  various  simple  or 
complicated  maladies  teach  us?"  Read  also  this 
quotation  from  the  preface  to  the  Materia  Medica 
Pura :  "If  a  work  on  Materia  Medica  can  reveal  the 
precise  qualities  of  medicines  it  must  be  one  from 
which  all  mere  assumption  and  empty  speculation 
about  the  reputed  qualities  of  drugs  are  excluded, 
and  which  only  records  what  medicines  express 
concerning  their  true  mode  of  action  in  the  symp- 
toms they  produce  in  the  human  body."  Is  not  this 
in  thorough  accord  with  the  exact  methods  in 
science  today?  It  has  been  said  that  "the  study  of 
physiology  and  pathology  within  the  past  half  cen- 
tury has  done  more  to  emancipate  medicine  from 
routine  and  the  thralldom  of  authority  than  the 
work  of  all  the  physicians  from  the  days  of  Hip- 

19 


pocrates  to  jenner."  Homoeopathy  has  stood  this 
crucial  test.  Some  of  the  new  discoveries  seemed 
at  first  subversive  of  the  doctrine,  but  when  finally 
relegated  to  their  proper  domain  were  found  to  be 
consistent  with  and  in  some  cases  confirmatory.  The 
germ  origin  of  certain  diseases  when  discov- 
ered seemed  to  imply  a  revolution  in  methods  of 
treatment,  but  after  twenty-five  years  it  is  found 
that  the  best  bactericides  for  bacteria  invading  the 
body  are  dynamically  acting  medicines.  Bacteria 
being  of  the  vegetable  world  were  here  long  before 
man,  and  man  would  not  have  survived  if  the  special 
function  of  protection  against  these  minute  enemies 
had  not  been  evolved;  for  protection  from  enemies 
is  as  important  for  the  survival  of  the  species  as 
nutrition  or  reproduction.  Indeed  "experiment  has 
demonstrated  that  there  resides  within  the  tissues 
and  fluids  of  the  body  the  property  of  destroying 
disease-producing  micro-organisms  in .  large  or 
small  numbers."  In  vigorous  health  it  is  most  man- 
ifest, while  the  effects  of  malnutrition,  fatigue,  de- 
bauch, disease,  and,  in  short,  all  influences  that 
materially  disturb  the  equilibrium  of  physiological 
function  are  to  diminish  or  destroy  it  entirely.  We 
have  already  seen  that  inflammation  and  fever  which 
are  disturbances  of  the  physiological  equilibrium  are 
conservative  or  curative  exaltations  of  physiological 
function.  May  not  the  dynamically  acting  remedy 
applied  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  similars  serve 
as  the  awakener  of  this  latent  protective  and  cura- 
tive function?  In  venturing  this  it  is  not  with  the 
idea  of  giving  an  adequate  "explanation"  of  the  law, 
but  rather  to  refute  the  implied  imputation  that  it  is 
not  rational. 

The  common  platform  upon  which  all  sincere  ad- 
herents of  Homoeopathy  stand  is  that  the  most  prac- 
tical guide  to  aid  in  the  selection  of  most,  perhaps  all 
medicines  in  the  cure  of  disease  is  the  rule,  similia 
similibus  curentur.  This  is  accepted,  not  as  the  re- 
sult of  any  speculative  reasoning,  but  as  an  em- 
pirical fact.  Several  plausible  explanations  of  the 
modus  operandi  of  the  law  of  similars  have  been 
suggested,  and  one  by  Hahnemann  himself,  but  he 
says  he  puts  "a  slight  value  upon  an  attempt  at  ex- 
planation." No  one  has  ever  explained  the  modus 

20 


operandi  of  the  law  of  gravitation,  but  that  does  not 
affect  our  belief  in  the  law. 

In  trying  to  present  the  essential  principles  upon 
which  the  doctrine  of  Homoeopathy  rests,  the  found- 
er has  been  quoted,  for  no  one  since  has  stated  the 
case  so  clearly  or  convincingly.  There  is  such  an 
embarrassment  of  riches  in  quotable  matter  in 
Hahnemann's  writings,  pertinent  for  study  at  this 
beginning  of  the  2Oth  century,  that  these  somewhat 
random  selections  are  but  meagre  examples  of  a 
wealth  of  up-to-date  medical  philosophy.  Study 
Hahnemann's  works.  Begin  with  the  Lesser 
Writings  and  see  how  the  doctrine  unfolds  itself. 
The  dogmatic  and  epigrammatic  sentences  of  the 
Organon,  each  "like  a  ponderous  block  of  stone, 
hewn  and  sculptured  by  the  skill  of  an  artisan, 
seeming  to  have  been  lifted  with  Titan  power  to  fill 
its  place  and  purpose  in  the  structure,"  will  be  in- 
vested with  new  meaning.  There  is  nothing  in 
contemporary  medical  literature  that  will  repay 
study  so  well.  There  is  nothing  in  modern  writers 
commensurate  with  his  master's  grasp  of  the  phil- 
osophy of  the  art  of  medicine.  Let  no  one  think  that 
its  failure  to  be  universally  accepted  argues  against 
its  truthfulness.  Another  great  German  philoso- 
pher has  said:  /Truth  can  bide  its  time,  for  it  has 
a  long  life  before  it.  Whatever  is  genuine  and  seri- 
ously meant  is  always  slow  to  make  its  way,  and 
certainly  attains  its  end  almost  miraculously;  for  on 
.its  first  appearance,  it,  as  -a  rule,  meets  with  a  cool, 
if  not  ungracious  reception,  and  this  for  exactly  the 
same  reason  that  when  it  is  fully  recognized,  and 
passed  on  to  posterity,  the  immense  majority  of  men 
take  it  on  credit,  in  order  to  avoid  compromising 
themselves,  whereas  the  number  of  genuine  appre- 
ciates remains  nearly  as  small  as  it  was  at  first. 
Truth  depends  upon  no  one's  favor  or  disfavor,  nor 
does  it  ask  any  one's  leave;  it  stands  upon  its  own 
feet,  and  has  time  for  its  ally;  its  power  is  irresist- 
ible ;  its  life  indestructible. 


21 


WHY  STUDENTS  OF  MEDICINE    SHOULD    SELECT  THE 
HOMEOPATHIC  SCHOOL. 

BY   DR.    V.    E.    BALDWIN,    AMBOY,    IND. 

"It  is  a  pleasure,"  said  Lord  Bacon,  "to  stand 
upon  the  shore  and  see  a  ship  tossed  upon  the  sea; 
a  pleasure  to  stand  in  the  window  of  a  castle  and  see 
a  battle  and  the  adventures  thereof  below;  but  no 
pleasure  is  comparable  to  the  standing  upon  the 
vantage  ground  of  truth  (a  hill  not  to  be  com- 
manded, and  where  the  air  is  clear  and  serene)  and 
to  see  the  errors  and  wanderings  and  mists  and 
tempests  in  the  vale  below." 

Truth  Supreme. 

Truth  is  eternal  and  unchanging,  the  immut- 
able relationship  of  things  which  preserves  their 
unity.  It  cannot  be  despised,  and  if  ignored  the 
penalty  of  ignorance,  indolence  and  impudence  is  to 
pay.  It  demands  the  submission  of  the  ambitious 
man  and  wins  the  reverence  of  the  student.  The  right 
relationship  of  facts,  events  and  truths  is  the  chief 
concern  of  men  today.  The  greatest  thing  in  *  the 
world  is  to  know  the  truth,  the  bravest  thing  in  the 
world  is  to  live  it. 

The  world  is  progressive.  It  is  ever  approaching 
a  correct  understanding  of  this  unchanging 
relationship.  In  every  branch  of  learning  new 
truths  are  being  revealed,  new  laws  discovered,  and 
he  who  would  win  the  crown  which  truth  awards 
must  adjust  himself  to  the  eternal  verities. 

Men  are  made  free  by  truth.,  There  are  many, 
however,  who,  admitting  their  woeful  confusion, 
are  so  conservative,  so  satisfied  with  present  knowl- 
edge, that  they  will  not  investigate.  They  cannot 
grow.  There  are  some  so  bigoted,  so  stubborn,  that 
in  spite  of  reason  and  regardless  of  evidence  they 
pursue  a  wanton  course  in  old  and  beaten  paths. 
There  are  others  so  radical,  so  irreverent,  believing 
all  is  false,  that  they  ignore  the  good  that  is.  They 
are  not  only  poor  authority  and  bad  advisers,  but 
world  retarders. '  The  truth  seeker  is  liberal ;  he  has 
a  reverent  conservatism,  is  judicious  in  accepting 

22 


new  things ;  he  proves  all  things,  holds  fast  to  that 
which  is  good,  presses  forward. 

It  is  taken  for  granted  that  this  is  the  attitude  of 
the  prospective  student,  especially  the  student  of 
medicine.  Principles  rather  than  policy,  conviction 
rather  than  tradition  or  environment,  should  decide 
the  course  of  the  prospective  physician.  His  first 
aim  should  be  to  know  the  truth,  ivhat  is  true  re- 
garding health,  what  is  true  about  disease,  what  is 
true  about  curative  medicine. 

History  of  Medicine. 

Confidence  is  an  essential  factor  of  enthusiasm. 
Law  is  an  essential  factor  of  science. 
Science  is  the  key  to  progress. 
Strange  as  it  may  appear,  every  branch  of  art  and 
science  has  made  more  rapid  progress  during  the 
past  few  centuries  than  medicine.    Medical  men  had 
not  been  liberal,  had  worked  in  the  dark,  had  failed 
to  grasp  the  relationship  of  the  things  they  dealt 
with ;  they  could  not  advance.    For  a  thousand  years 
little  or  no  progress  was  made  toward  systematizing 
a  science  of  therapeutics.    Men  were  growing  faith- 
less and  skeptical  as  to  the  possibilities  of  a  science 
of  therapeutics.     Dr.  Charles  Williams  says  in  his 
"Principles  of  Medicine"    (allopathic)  :    "Compare 
the  state  of  medicine  with  that  of  anatomy,  physi- 
ology, and  chemistry,  how  minute,  how  precise,  how 
connected,  how  definite  are  these,  yet  how  loose, 
how  indefinite,  how  uncertain,  how  unconnected  is 
the    practice    of    our    art."     Brown-Sequard,    the 
great  pathologist  and  physiologist  of  France,  said  in 
1866:    "We  find  very  little  known  as  regards. the 
real  and  ultimate  action  of  remedies.     This  is  much 
to  be  lamented."    The  late  editor  of  the  Dublin  Med- 
ical Journal    (allopathic)    remarks   in  an  editorial: 
" Assuredly,    the   uncertain    and    unsatisfactory   art 
which  we  call  medical  science  is  no  science  at  all, 
but  a  mere  jumble  of  inconsistent  opinions,  of  con- 
clusions hastily  and  often  incorrectly  drawn,  of  facts 
misunderstood,  of  comparisons  without  analogy,  of 
hypotheses  without  reason  and  of  theories  not  only 
useless  but  dangerous." 

Meanwhile  the  natural  sciences  have  made  rapid 
strides  toward  organization.  In  these  branches  laws 
had  been  discovered,  their  truth  proved  and  main- 

\  23 


tained,  and  around  them  all  other  related  facts  have 
taken  their  place  naturally  and  inevitably.  In 
physics,  Archimedes,  by  accident,  it  seemed,  had 
observed  and  demonstrated  the  law  of  specific 
gravity.  In  mechanics  the  law  which  is  its  basic 
principle  "the  less  force  equals  the  greater  by  mov- 
ing through  more  space  at  the  same  time"  had  been 
discovered  by  Galileo.  Newton's  law  that  "all 
bodies  attract  each  other  directly  as  the  mass  and 
inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance"  became  the 
foundation  for  astronomy.  Harvey  demonstrated 
the  circulation  of  the  blood  and  thence  revolutioniz- 
ed physiology.  Dalton  placed  chemistry  along  with 
the  exact  sciences  when  he  proved  that  "elementary 
and  simple  bodies  combine  with  each  other  to  form 
compound  bodies  in  definite  and  fixed  proportions." 
Many  others  might  be  enumerated — as  the  laws  of 
friction,  electricity,  the  elasticity  of  steam,  and  the 
discovery  of  the  magnetic  needle;  all  of  these  have 
been  means  to  enable  modern  inventors  to  provide 
for  us  the  comforts  of  this  twentieth  century.  Be- 
cause of  the  discovery  of  these  laws  along  scientific 
lines  of  study  there  can  be  unanimity  of  opinion  and 
assurance  of  progress. 

Until  the  last  century  medicine  had  no  such  fully 
demonstrated  laws.  Its  confused  state,  as  well  as 
the  unsatisfactory  results  in  practice  at  the  close  of 
the  previous  century,  was  an  excuse  for  the  more  in- 
telligent and  conscientious  to  shift  about  for  a  more 
definite  and  assuring  means  of  healing  the  sick. 
Time  and  again  the  more  philosophical  of  the  pro- 
fession had  glimpses  of  the  guiding  law.  But  none 
were  astute  enough  to  formulate  and  promulgate 
the  doctrine. 

A  Law  in  Medicine. 

It  was  not  until  1796  that  a  definite  law  of  thera- 
peutics was  ever  asserted.  Six  years  previously,  while 
Dr.  Samuel  Hahnemann  was  translating  Cullen's 
work  on  allopathic  materia  medica,  he  suddenly 
conceived  the  mystical  idea  of  the  law  of  Similia 
Similibus  Curentur.  Here  it  was  that  he  read 
"cinchona  bark  when  taken  in  large  doses  would 
produce  on  the  healthy  symptoms  similar  to  ague." 
Yet  it  was  recommended  for  the  cure  of  ague.  He 
paused  in  his  work  and  marvelled  at  this  coinci- 

24 


dence.  "Can  it  be  possible  that  this  is  the  reason 
why  cinchona  bark  cures  ague,"  he  asked  himself. 
•  He  would  experiment  upon  himself ;  he  would  know 
the  truth.  Lo,  and  behold,  his  surmises  were  veri- 
fied, he  developed  a  typical  chill,  and  symptoms  of 
an  intermittent  fever.  He  made  a  decoction  of  the 
bark  and  prescribed  it  to  the  sick  complaining  of 
similar  symptoms,  and  to  his  delight  the  coincidence 
became  a  verified  fact  in  his  experience.  He  might 
have  shouted,  as  did  Archimedes,  when  he  plunged 
into  his  bath  and  noted  that  he  had  displaced  an 
amount  of  water  equal  to  his  own  bulk,  "T  have 
found  it!  I  have  found  it!" 

The  law  of  therapeutics  seemed  very  clear  to  him 
then.  On  making  subsequent  provings  of  other 
drugs  upon  the  healthy,  and  prescribing  them  in 
like  manner  for  the  sick  with  similar  phenomena,  he 
was  invariably  successful. 

Two  Schools  in  Medicine. 

Since  the  announcement  of  the  observation 
Hahnemann  made,  there  have  been  two  medical 
schools;  the  one  allopathic,  supporting  the  ancient 
notion  of  prescribing  for  the  sick  on  the  basis  of 
results  obtained  by  experiments;  the  other  homoeo- 
pathic, resting  its  therapeutics  upon  the  law  of 
"similars." 
Teachings  in  Common. 

Before  going  farther  into  the  discussion  of  the 
tenets  of  each  school  let  us  eliminate  the  subject 
matter  upon  which  all  agree,  and  because  of  which 
there  would  be  no  grounds  whatever  for  distinct 
and  separate  institutions.  All  the  natural  sciences, 
so  far  as  they  are  applicable  to  the  study  of  medicine, 
have  or  should  have  equal  prominence  in  the  course 
of  study.  Physics  and  chemistry  are  the  same  in 
both;  botany  and  zoology,  biology  and  physiology, 
as  important  to  the  one  as  to  the  other,  are  taught  in 
both.  Anatomy  and  surgery  are  subjects  upon 
which  there  is  little  ground  for  contention.  We  use 
the  same  text-books  in  histology  and  psychology, 
and  apply  nearly  the  same  rules  in  hygiene  and 
dietetics. 
Where  the  Schools  Diverge. 

On  two  subjects  only  do  we  diverge,  and  yet  these 
subjects  stand  for  all  that  makes  any  medical  college 

25 


necessary.  They  are  first,  etiology  and  pathology, 
the  cause  and  nature  of  disease ;  and  second,  thera- 
peutics, the  science  of  cure.  Here  we  divide.  On 
these  two  foundation  stones  we  must  erect  systems 
of  medicine.  It  is  hard  to  separate  these  subjects, 
as  a  science  of  cure  is  almost  wholly  determined  by 
understanding  the  cause  and  nature  of  disease. 
This  statement  is  verified  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
past  allopathic  therapeutic  methods  have  been 
changed  from  time  to  time  to  adjust  themselves  to 
the  new  theories  of  pathologists  as  to  the  nature  of 
disease.  On  the  basis  that  disease  is  due  to  some 
morbid  matter  existing  in  the  body,  it  calls  for 
purges,  diuretics  and  sudorifics ;  or,  if  there  were 
any  inequalities  of  circulation  these  call  for  blisters 
and  bleeding;  toxins  in  the  blood  call  for  chemical 
antidotes;  bacterial  infection  calls  for  antiseptics, 
the  therapeutic  agent  always  changing  with  new  ex- 
planations of  morbid  processes.  There  being  no 
fixed  etiology  and  pathology  there  could  be  no  en- 
during therapeutics. 

There  could  be  no  fixed  etiology,  because  there 
was  no  fixed  point  of  view.  The  "pathologist," 
being  at  the  same  time  a  chemist,  a  physiologist, 
anatomist  or  histologist,  would  invariably  interpret 
the  morbid  changes  from  different  points  of  vision. 
Since  there  was  no  universal  law  for  disease 
phenomena,  the  chemist  would  detect  chemical 
irregularities,  in  the  tissue ;  the  physiologist,  disor- 
dered function;  the  anatomist,  deformities,  and  the 
histologist,  cell  degeneracy.  Consequently  there 
could  be  no  uniformity  of  opinion,  and  the  existing 
predominant  influence  determined  the  drift  of  thera- 
peutical empiricism. 

Homoeopathic  Standpoint. 

While  it  may  not  be  possible  to  give  a  complete 
analysis  of  morbid  changes,  however,  there  are  im- 
portant points  upon  which  Homoeopaths  agree. 

First.  Any  natural  phenomena,  per  se,  cannot  at 
the  same  time  be  cause  and  effect. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  matter  cannot  exist 
without  cause.  Matter  of  itself  is  inert;  it  cannot 
move ;  it  cannot  grow ;  it  cannot  think ;  eve,n  organiz- 
ed bodies  cannot  exist  for  any  length  of  time  without 
an  immaterial  element  to  hold  their  parts  in  com- 

26 


bination.  The  earth,  the  sun,  the  universe,  all  mani- 
fest an  omnipotent  influence  operative  over  all, 
through  all  and  in  all.  All  matter  is  impregnated 
with  a  vital  element. 

Man  has  "the  breath  of  life,"  his  body  is  the  tem- 
ple of  a  living  soul.  There  are  no  accidents  in 
nature,  man  exists  because  of  the  influx  of  life. 
Without  the  spark  which  vivifies  the  tissue  even  his 
finely  organized  and  complicated  body  would  crum- 
ble into  dust.  Call  it  vital  force,  simple  substance, 
dynamic  power,  or  what  you  will,  yet  back  of  these 
bodies,  back  of  organic  and  inorganic  forms,  back  of 
earth,  the  sun  and  the  universe  itself  is  the  modify- 
ing influence  of  an  immaterial  force.  Rational  be- 
ings cannot  leave  it  out  of  account.  It  must  play  a 
part  in  any  pathological  or  therapeutic  discussion. 
Yet  to  the  allopathic  prescriber  this  is  so  much  non- 
sense. He  sees  nothing  in  man  but  a  complicated, 
though  systematic  arrangement  of  tissue  elements. 
From  his  standpoint  the  body  is  the  beginning,  the 
end,  the  sum  total  of  man's  existence.  That  which 
he  cannot  see,  feel  or  hear  is  of  little  consequence 
as  far  as  therapeutics  is  concerned. 

Second.  Disease  is  dynamic  disorder. 

The  homoeopathic  physician  acknowledges  the  im- 
material element  of  man's  existence  as  playing  an 
important  part  in  his  emotions,  sensations  and  func- 
tions. He  sees  deeper  than  the  body,  he  perceives 
the  hand  of  law  working  in  his  tissues.  To  him  dis- 
ease means  more  than  degenerated  flesh  and  blood. 
It  means  disordered  vital  economy.  To  him  health 
is  an  index  of  good  government,  or  a  proper  adjust- 
ment of  vital  forces  within  the  body.  Disease  stands 
for  bad  government  or  a  disordered  vital  economy. 

Let  me  illustrate  this  point  by  analogy.  A  state 
is  founded  on  its  constitution,  a  constitution  on  the 
will  of  the  people.  The  will  of  the  people  is  deter- 
mined by  their  intelligence,  intelligence  is  a  meas- 
ure of  the  perception  of  right  relation,  and  morals  is 
the  measure  of  its  practice.  If  the  intelligence  is 
great  and  the  morals  good,  so  long  the  state  will 
endure.  Let  these  degenerate  and  the  state  will 
crumble  to  dust.  Enemies  may  harass  and  storms 
threaten,  but  if  the  people  be  patriotic,  wise  and 
pure,  the  state  is  secure.  The  greatest  enemies  to 
any  state  are  the  enemies  within.  Social  and  politi- 

27 


cal  decay  will  ultimate  in  riot  and  ruin,  disorder  will 
prevail  and  disolution  threaten.  What  can  be  done 
to  restore  the  state  ?  Three  ways  suggest  themeslves 
in  such  conditions:  (i)  Coercion,  (2)  compromise, 
(3)  regeneration  and  education. 

To  coerce  the  state  is  sure  to  meet  with  resistance 
or  ultimately  destroy  it;  to  compromise  is  always 
temporary  and  partial;  to  regenerate  requires  wis- 
dom and  time.  So  it  is  with  the  sick  man.  To  try 
to  compel  his  organism  to  function  only  meets  with 
resistance  and  complication.  How  often  the  invalid 
is  drugged  with  concoctions  which  disarrange  his 
digestion,  disturb  his  circulation  and  paralyze  his 
senses  in  the  endeavor  to  coerce  the  parts  into  a 
state  of  order,  forgetting  the  disordered  life  prin- 
ciple and  disregarding  the  profound  struggle  which 
nature  is  making  to  restore  normal  function.  Nor 
can  permanent  order  be  restored  by  compromise. 
We  palliate  symptoms  for  awhile,  but  event- 
ually they  will  recur  and  most  generally  in  an  ag- 
gravated form.  We  are  driven  to  admit,  theoretic- 
ally at  least,  that  the  only  rational  method  that  prom- 
ises to  be  safe,  speedy  and  permanent  would  be  to 
restore  order  at  the  center  of  government.  To 
treat  the  patient,  not  his  parts ;  the  tenant,  not  his 
house. 

In  this  analogy  is  illustrated  the  contention  be- 
tween allopathy  and  Homoeopathy.  The  one  mag- 
nifies the  material,  the  other  the  immaterial  phase  of 
man's  existence ;  the  one  suppresses,  the  other  regen- 
erates. .  The  allopath  says  the  body  is  the  man, 
therefore,  disease  is  a  pathological  lesion,  which, 
when  locally  repaired,  will  functionate  normally,  for- 
getting the  immaterial  factors  without  which  there 
could  be  no  man,  either  in  a  state  of  health  or  dis- 
ease. He  plasters  with  poultices  to  draw  out  some 
morbid  matter;  he  washes  with  antiseptics  to  de- 
stroy the  microbes;  he  irritates  with  caustics  to  en- 
force a  healing  process;  paralyzes  the  part  with 
anodynes  to  relieve  the  pain,  too  often  ignorant  of 
effects  and  indifferent  to  consequences.  Perhaps 
after  all  the  swelling  does  not  subside,  the  sore  does 
not  heal  and  the  pain  recurs.  He  sees  nothing  but 
the  lesion  and  this  absolutely  refuses  to  be  restored. 
He  has  called  to  his  aid  all  the  local  adjuvants  which 
experience  from  previous  generations  has  suggested. 

28 


He  has  fed  his  patients  with  the  most  nutritious  diet. 
He  has  tried  emetics,  purgatives,  sedatives  and  stim- 
ulants, yet  the  disease  not  only  persists  but  spreads. 
The  whole  vital  economy  is  aroused;  now  it  is  a 
struggle  for  existence. 

Can  disease  exist  without  a  cause ,  can  a  car- 
buncle, an  ulcer  be  both  cause  and  effect  ?  Can  taint- 
ed blood  and  palsied  nerves  be  the  beginning  and  the 
ending  of  disorder  simultaneously?  Impossible! 
There  is  something  prior  to  ulcer,  blood  and  nerve. 
It  is  the  man  himself.  The  patient  is  sick,  not  his 
skin,  his  blood,  his  nerves ;  the  disorders  in  these  are 
simply  indices  of  the  nature  of  the  disordered  man, 
hints  to  tell  us  he  is  sick,  just  as  the  staggering 
gait,  the  bloated  face,  the  irrelevant  talk  tell  us  a 
man  is  drunk.  His  tissues  are  not  intoxicated,  the 
man  has  lost  co-ordination  and  the  sense  of  adjust- 
ment ;  his  vital  processes  are  in  confusion,  he  is 
readily  diagnosed  a  drunkard.  How  foolish  it  would 
be  to  advise  the  tying  of  hands  to  abolish  stealing, 
the  ligating  of  lips  to  suppress  swearing,  forgetting 
the  while  that  the  man  is  a  sinner  and  these  are  but 
his  symptoms.  His  inner  life  is  wrong,  he  needs 
regeneration  and  readjustment  of  its  principles  to 
correct  his  faults.  Just  so  truly  the  sick  man  is 
suffering  from  perversion  and  disorder  of  the  vital 
forces.  These  must  sooner  or  later  be  readjusted 
if  he  may  enjoy  ease  and  comfort.  Then,  and  not 
till  then,  will  all  his  morbid  conditions  and  symp- 
toms disappear  safely,  speedily  and  permanently. 

There  must  be  a  definite  relation  between  the  ulti- 
mates  of  disease,  as  they  appear  in  the  body,  and  the 
cause  of  disease  as  a  condition  of  disordered  vital 
force.  Without  that  cause  there  could  be  no  lesion. 
Give  that  cause,  and  there  must  eventually  appear  a 
given  lesion.  Remove  the  cause,  if  such  be  possi- 
ble, and  the  lesion  must  disappear  in  all  curable 
cases. 

Objections  to  Allopathy. 

Allopathy  uses  physiological  means  to  correct  a 
dynamic  disorder.  Therefore,  it  is  often  incom- 
petent to  eradicate  the  cause.  Local  applications  do 
not  remove  it,  and  do  not  restore  a  healthy  state. 
For  example,  an  eczematous  eruption  of  the  skin  is 
a  pathological  lesion  which  represents  an  internal 

29 


disorder ;  it  exists  because  of  such  disorder.  One  of 
Nature's  methods  to  restore  order  is  through  erup- 
tions; the  eruption  is  no  accident  but  a  natural 
sequence.  The  economy  is  protecting  itself  by 
eliminating  that  which  is  an  enemy  to  health.  That 
this  constitutional  trouble  manifests  itself  in  a  par- 
ticular kind  of  eruption  is  evident  to  everyone  who 
observes.  The  allopath  undertakes  to  cure  this  erup- 
tion, and  applies  some  astringent  salve,  which,  per- 
haps, dries  it  up  or  "drives  it  in."  At  any  rate  it 
disappears.  By  this  act  he  has  opposed  Nature's 
process.  Nature's  physician  seems  to  say,  "Through 
the  skin  is  the  safest  and  freest  avenue  of  drainage ; 
an  eruption  here  need  not  jeopardize  the  life  of  the 
patient."  Allopathy  says,  "This  discharge  must  be 
stopped."  So  without  inquiry  into  vital  causes  he 
attempts  to  prevent  what  Nature  is  doing  for  the 
patient's  welfare.  If  he  succeeds  it  may  only  follow 
to  his  chagrin — perhaps  he  calls  it  a  rare  coinci- 
dence— that  the  disease  breaks  out  afresh  in  some 
other  part,  it  may  be  some  vital  point. 

The  patient  is  taken  with  desperate  pain,  again 
palliative  medicine  disregards  Nature's  danger 
signal  from  within,  and  with  anodynes  it  muffles  the 
cry  for  help  without  relieving  the  cause  of  the  dis- 
tress. It  is  only  temporary,  it  cannot  be  permanent. 
The  physician  is  unable  to  affect  the  immaterial 
plane  with  heroic  closes,  or  at  least  a  combination  of 
drugs,  for  if  they  do  no  harm  they  must  be  as- 
similated or  eliminated,  and  at  best  can  only  minister 
to  the  body  on  the  physical  plane. 

Allopathy  has  no  law  in  therapeutics.  The  only 
basis  upon  which  it  offers  its  prescriptions  is  the  ex- 
perience of  other  men  in  other  cases.  Granted  that 
cases  are  cured  upon  this  basis,  which  is  readily  ad- 
mitted, there  are  serious  objections  to  allopathic 
methods. 

First.  Its  prescriptions  include,  with  rare  excep- 
tions, two  or  more  active  ingredients,  not  all  of 
which  can  be  specifically  indicated  in  any  given  case. 

Any  drug  when  taken  into  the  body  and  assimilated 
must  spend  its  force  some  way  somewhere,  else  why 
should  it  be  prescribed  at  all?  Two  or  more  drugs 
must  inevitably  react  in  as  many  different  ways,  else 
there  would  be  no  apparent  necessity  for  more  than 
one.  Now,  if  the  disease  is  a  local  lesion,  and  these 

30 


drugs  are  spending  their  force  in  different  directions, 
it  stands  to  reason  that  all  of  them  cannot  affect  the 
diseased  part.  No  doctor  can  prescribe  two  or  more 
drugs  wisely  unless  he  is  able  to  explain  two  proposi- 
tions : 

a.  As  to  how  these  drugs,  when  taken  together, 
will  react  upon  one  another,  chemically,  physiologic- 
ally and  dynamically. 

b.  In  what  direction  and  with  what  final  effect 
will  these  drugs  spend  their  forces  upon  the  human 
economy. 

Unless  these  principles  are  understood  the  physi- 
cian who  prescribes  must  confess  his  ignorance  of 
grounds  for  making  his  prescription.  It  is  folly  to 
say  that  drugs  not  specifically  indicated  will  do  no 
harm.  This  alone  is  a  confession  of  weakness.  And, 
if  they  are  to  be  of  no  benefit  why  disturb  the  sys- 
tem with  the  disposing  of  them,  which  alone  would 
require  the  expenditure  of  valuable  energy.  Scien- 
tific (?)  medicine  prescribed  for  an  epileptic : 

If.     Iodide  of  potash, 

Syrup  of  tolu, aa  giij . 

Syrup  of  Ipecac,    %iss. 

Fluid  ext.  Veratrum  viride,  .  .3i. 

Morph.   sulf.,    grs.  iij.     MX. 

Sig. — One  drachm  to  be  taken  three  times  daily. 

Also  Bromide  of  sodium  was  to  be  taken  in  in- 
creasing doses  until  it  produced  bromism ;  also  some 
blue  mass  to  alter  the  secretions,  and  for  the  bowels 
a  pill,  now  and  then,  composed  of  Aloes,  extract  of 
Hyoscyamus,  extract  of  Ntix  vomica  and  extract  of 
Ipecac.  Ten  separate  function-deranging  agents  to 
cure  an  epileptic.  Can  any  chemist  explain  the  reac- 
tion of  these  drugs  on  one  another,  not  to  mention 
their  action  in  the  human  economy.  Hahnemann 
said:  "The  business  of  the  physician  is  to  heal  the 
sick,  speedily,  gently  and  permanently."  Does  it 
stand  to  reason  that  this  method  would  be  gentle? 
Is  it  even  safe  ?  Upon  what  principle  in  therapeutics 
has  "the  disease  been  cured?" 

Second.  Experience  is  not  a  safe  therapeutic 
guide. 

a.  The  recurrence  of  cases  of  exactly  similar  type 
is  highly  improbable. 

31 


b.  The  action  of  a  drug  on  one  patient  might  be 
wholly  unlike  its  action  on  another,  just  as  ordinary 
food  stuff  agreeable  to  one  might  be  obnoxious  to 
another. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  science  has  drawn  such 
widely  different  conclusions  on  therapeutic  meas- 
ures when  depending  on  experience.  What  one  doc- 
tor uses  successfully  another  fails  with;  what  one 
doctor  recommends,  another  claims  is  dangerous. 
Their  experiences  differ,  because  no  two  patients  or 
their  sicknesses  are  identical.  Under  such  condi- 
tions, what  is  the  inexperienced  to  do?  Can  it  be 
that  Dr.  Kent's  old  allopathic  preceptor  spoke  the 
truth  when  he  said  to  him:  "Doctor,  you  will  lose 
scores  of  cases  before  you  will  learn  what  not  to  do." 

Third.  Allopathic  physicians  do  not  agree  in  their 
prescriptions. 

They  have  no  means  of  actually  determining  what 
is  the  indicated  remedy  in  any  case  they  treat;  they 
declare  there  can  be  no  law.  Osier,  one  of  the  great- 
est of  allopathic  practitioners  and  authors,  says 
repeatedly  in  his  text  that  the  expectant  methods  are 
all  that  can  be  depended  upon.  He  even  refuses  to 
suggest  indicated  remedies  in  his  treatise  on  prac- 
tice (allopathic).  Outside  of  Opium,  Calomel,  Qui- 
nine, Potasium  iodide,  salts  and  Arsenic,  the  domi- 
nant school  depends  largely  upon  the  recommended 
preparations  of  pharmaceutical  houses  for  its  reme- 
dies. Dr.  S.  E.  Chapman,  of  California,  took  a  very 
careful  record  of  the  symptoms  of  a  patient  with  a 
detailed  history  of  the  case.  He  sent  this  statement, 
enclosing  a  two  dollar  bill,  to  ten  allopathic  physi- 
cians of  national  repute,  and  asked  for  a  prescription. 
At  the  same  time  he  sent  the  statement  to  ten  Ho- 
moeopaths of  equal  repute  in  different  parts  of  the 
United  States.  Eight  of  the  allopaths  answered,  and 
sent  as  many  separate  prescriptions,  including  a 
score  or  more  of  distinct  drugs.  No  two  agreed; 
one  refused  to  prescribe  without  seeing  the  patient ; 
one  did  not  reply.  The  Homoeopaths  gave  a  unani- 
mous decision  in  favor  of  a  single  remedy.  Repeat- 
ed tests  of  this  kind  have  resulted  similarly.  In  the 
light  of  such  variety  of  conclusions  on  the  same 
set  of  symptoms,  is  it  justifiable  to  speak  of  allo- 
pathic practice  as  scientific  medicine? 

Prof.  H.  C.  Wood,  in  the  preface  of  his  "Treatise 

32 


on  Therapeutics"  (allopathic),  sums  up  the  condi- 
tion as  follows :  "Experience  is  said  to  be  the  mother 
of  wisdom.  Verily  she  has  been  in  medicine  rather 
a  blind  leader  of  the  blind,  and  the  history  of  medi- 
cal progress  is  the  history  of  a  man  groping  in  the 
darkness,  finding  seeming  gems  of  truth,  one  after 
another,  only  in  a  few  minutes  to  cast  each  back  into 
a  heap  of  forgotten  baubles  that  in  their  day  had  also 
been  mistaken  for  verities.  Narrowing  our  gaze  to 
the  regular  profession  to  a  few  decades,  what  do  we 
see?  Experience  teaching  that  not  to  bleed  a  man 
for  pneumonia  is  to  consign  him  to  an  unopened 
grave,  and  experience  teaching  that  to  bleed  a  man 
suffering  with  pneumonia  is  to  consign  him  to  a 
grave  never  opened  by  nature.  Looking  at  the  revo- 
lutions of  the  past,  listening  to  the  therapeutic  babel 
of  the  present,  is  it  a  wonder  that  men  should  take 
refuge  in  nihilism,  and  like  the  lotus  eaters  dream 
that  all  alike  is  folly,  that  rest  and  quiet  and  calm  are 
the  only  human  fruitions  ?" 

The  Tenets  of  Homoeopathy. 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  in  times  like  these  men  of 
philosophical  turn  of  mind  should  long  for  and  search 
for  a  key  that  might  solve  the  problem  of  the  rela- 
tionship of  drugs  to  the  phenomena  of  disease?  It 
has  been  said  that  searching  minds  and  living  truths 
cannot  always  abide  apart.  Ever  since  the  time  of 
Aristotle  it  was  conceded  that  such  a  relationship 
existed,  and  frequently  the  truth  was  all  but  reveal- 
ed. It  happened  by  the  merest  chance  to  be  disclosed 
in  tact  to  that  master  mind,  that  patron  saint  of  an 
accurate  therapeutics,  Samuel  Hahnemann.  Al- 
though from  the  first  it  seemed  very  clear,  yet  it  re- 
mained for  him  to  demonstrate  to  the  world :  i.  That 
disease  was  the  product  of  disordered  vital  force; 
2.  that  drugs  when  given  to  the  healthy  could  produce 
certain  definite  pathogenetic  variations  from  the 
normal ;  3.  that  these  results  were  relatively  the  same 
for  all  men,  at  all  times,  in  all  places ;  and,  4.  finally, 
that  those  drugs  will  cure  such  natural  morbid  symp- 
toms in  the  sick  as  they  have  been  shown  to  produce 
artificially  in  the  healthy. 

On  this  framework  Homoeopathy  has  founded  her 
Materia  Medica  and  practical  therapeutics.  It  re- 
mains for  us  to  establish  these  tenets  as  sound  and 

33 


practical  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  advantages  of 
Homoeopathy  over  allopathy. 

Comparing  the  Materia  Medica  of  the  Two  Schools. 

It  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  first  point  is  estab- 
lished. Let  us  compare  allopathic  Materia  Medica 
with  that  of  Homoeopathy.  Homoeopathic  provings 
have  been  made  upon  healthy  human  beings ;  a  given 
drug  carefully  selected,  purified  and  prepared  is 
taken  in  rep-eated  doses  by  a  given  number  of 
healthy  persons.  Careful  notes  are  taken  by  both  the 
subject  and  his  observers  of  all  the  signs  and  symp- 
toms which  vary  from  the  normal.  Those  signs  and 
symptoms  which  are  common  to  all  are  set  down  as 
of  greatest  significance.  Those  that  are  experienced 
by  a  small  per  cent,  of  the  provers  are  indicated  as  of 
less  significance,  and  so  on  down  the  scale.  All  the 
signs  and  symptoms  are  recorded  in  a  degree  of 
prominence  in  which  they  are  manifested.  In  this 
way  all  our  drugs  are  proved.  Besides  these,  but  of 
minor  importance,  might  be  mentioned  the  symp- 
toms noted  in  poison  cases  which  result  more  or  less 
seriously,  and  finally,  and  of  the  least  importance,  is 
the  clinical  experience  of  observant  practitioners. 
This  constitutes  the  drug  pathogenesis  and  materia 
medica  of  symptoms,  so  that  Homoeopaths  know  rela- 
tively what  to  expect  from  any  given  drug,  how  it 
spends  itself  in  a  human  organism,  and  how  it  per- 
verts the  sensorium. 

Allopathic  Materia  Medica  is  made  up  from  three 
sources : 

a.  Clinical  experience,  or  the  result  of  the  action 
of  drugs  on  the  sick. 

b.  The  action  of  drugs  upon  healthy  animals. 

c.  The  pathological  changes  produced  by  drugs  as 
shown  by  vivisection  and  post  mortems. 

The  objections  to  such  methods  are  apparent  to 
thoughtful  observers.  Such  Materia  Medica  would 
not  only  be  unreliable  but  impracticable.  It  could  not 
be  constant  in  the  first  place.  The  effect  of  a  drug  up- 
on one  person  in  sickness  might  be  different  from  that 
upon  another.  The  causes  of  diseases  being  various, 
the  nature  of  disease  being  modified  by  family  his- 
tory, and  individual  idiosyncrasies,  and  physical 
environment,  the  action  of  any  drug  must  be  uncer- 
tain and  confusing.  Again,  animals  cannot  talk ;  ex- 

34 


periments  upon  them  must  therefore  be  unsatisfact- 
ory and  unreliable.  The  nice  discriminations,  which 
are  most  important,  of  modified  sensations  and  emo- 
tions, cannot  be  elicited  from  them.  Perhaps,  too, 
they  are  not  susceptible  to  the  same  influences  which 
men  are  susceptible  to  and  in  the  same  manner  and 
"degree.  Finally,  suppose  the  physician  could  know, 
which  he  cannot,  the  remedy  indicated  by  the  pa- 
thological state  of  the  diseased  organ,  how  could  he 
make  such  knowledge  practicable  at  the  bedside  ?  If 
the  doctor  must  make  a  microscopical  slide  of  the 
patient's  liver,  kidney  or  spleen  to  determine  the 
remedy  he  needs  then  he  might  as  well  engage  the 
undertaker  and  be  done  with  it.  This  part  of  Materia 
Medica  reminds  us  of  the  practice  of  the  nurseryman 
who  pulled  out  the  grafts  to  see  whether  they  had 
started  to  grow.  Such  a  Materia  Medica  based  on 
such  observations  is  not  only  full  of  false  conclusions 
and  theoretical  statements  but  is  very  unscientific 
and  impracticable. 

The  homoeopathic  Materia  Medica  is  true  for  all 
men  in  all  places  and  in  all  ages.  The  experiments 
on  scores  of  healthy  people  at  one  time  must  give  a 
record  that  will  be  constant  for  all  men  in  all  times. 
The  factors  are  constant,  the  result  must  be  constant. 
Given  a  healthy  person  and  a  pure  drug,  we  will  get 
a  given  pathogenesis.  According  to  allopathic 
Materia  Medica  the  factors  are  inconstant.  A  vari- 
able disease  in  man  and  a  pure  drug  must  give  a 
variable  result.  This  accounts  for  the  confusion  in 
"regular"  medicine. 

Drug  phenomena  equal  disease  phenomena.  Here 
as  in  all  the  natural  sciences,  law  directs,  experience 
confirms.  Hahnemann  observed  the  striking  simili- 
tude between  the  signs  and  symptoms  produced  by 
the  action  of  Cinchona  on  the  healthy,  and  the  cura- 
tive action  when  applied  to  ague  and  intermittent 
fever.  His  subsequent  experience  verified  his  con- 
clusion that  the  law  of  similars  was  true.  He  first 
grasped  the  relationship  between  drug  action  and 
disease  signs  and  set  it  down  as  law.  Law  is  not 
matter,  it  simply  confirms  a  fixed  relationship  of 
matter.  When  Newton  observed  that  the  apple  fell 
when  separated  from  the  branch,  he  was  able  to  as- 
sert in  a  general  proposition,  which  time  anr!  ex- 
perience has  confirmed,  the  law  of  gravitation.  Such 

35 


a  statement  of  the  relationship  of  bodies  is  law,  until 
experience  can  controvert  it.  There  is  only  one  way 
to  demonstrate  a  law  and  that  is  by  the  practical 
test.  Will  it  work  ?  To  Hahnemann's  mind  the  law 
was  true,  because  when  he  applied  it,  it  removed  the 
complaints.  It  is  not  a  question  of  logic  so  much  as 
common  sense.  It  is  not  a  question  of  probability  . 
but  of  certainty ;  it  must  either  be  true  all  the  time  or 
false  all  the  time.  If  called  upon  to  define  electricity, 
magnetism  or  gravitation  you  would  make  a  dismal 
failure.  Scientific  men  have  given  up  the  idea  of 
reaching  an  explanation  from  a  material  standpoint. 
However,  that  does  not  hinder  them  from  applying 
these  forces  according  to  the  laws  discovered.  No 
one  now  refuses  to  ride  in  street  cars  because  they  do 
not  understand  the  action  of  the  motor.  The  cars 
run  and  that  is  sufficient. 

In  the  same  light  should  the  law  of  "similia"  be 
tested.  In  all  the  literature  against  Homoeopathy 
no  one  has  succeeded  in  proving  that  it  does  not 
work.  The  small  coterie  of  men  surrounding  Hahne- 
mann  in  the  beginning  of  the  century  has  now  in- 
creased to  thousands.  They  are  to  be  found  in 
every  nation.  They  have  come,  the  best  of  the 
early  men  at  least,  from  allopathic  ranks.  Every 
year  the  number  increases,  and  why?  Because  Ho- 
moeopathy cures.  The  men  who  put  it  to  an  honest 
test  are  its  converts,  there  are  no  backsliders  from 
the  homoeopathic  camp.  There  are  many,  indeed, 
who  are  incompetent  to  apply  its  rigid  precepts,  and 
from  ignorance  or  indolence  stumble  along,  sometimes 
falling  out  entirely,  but  never  because  of  the  failure 
of  the  law.  Wherever  it  has  been  faithfully  applied 
human  suffering  has  been  alleviated. 

The  provings  of  Hahnemann  made  a  hundred 
years  ago  are  true  today,  always  will  be  true.  Allo- 
pathic Materia  Medica  has  changed  again  and  again ; 
the  text-books  of  yesterday  are  obsolete  today;  the 
text-books  of  today  will  be  altered  tomorrow.  As 
Prof.  H,  C.  Wood  remarked:  "What  has  clinical 
therapeutics  established  permanently,  indisputably? 
Scarcely  anything  beyond  the  primary  fact  that 
quinine  will  arrest  an  intermittent,  that  salts  will 
purge,  that  opium  will  quiet  pain  and  lull  to  sleep." 
But  the  Materia  Medica  of  Hahnemann  and  the  early 
masters  is  the  masterpiece  of  homoeopathic  practice 

36 


forever.  When  allopathy  is  forgotten  and  its  patrons 
pointed  out  as  curiosities  of  medical  history ;  when 
its  books  are  laid  upon  the  shelves,  dust  covered  and 
moth  eaten,  the  provings  of  Hahnemann  will  still 
remain  the  permanent  guide  and  authority  for  ho- 
moeopathic practice.  If  any  prospective  medical  stu- 
dent desires  to  practice  tomorrow  what  he  learns  in 
the  colleges  today  he  must  be  trained  and  educated 
in  a  homoeopathic  school. 

Homoeopathy  Is  Scientific. 

Homoeopathy  is  the  only  system  in  which  pre- 
vision is  possible.  One  of  the  tests  of  the  universali- 
ty of  a  law  is  the  ability  to  predict  results  by  its  ap- 
plication. Given  a  certain  definite  set  of  symptoms 
it  should  be  possible  to  determine  a  definite  remedial 
agent.  If  this  cannot  be  accomplished  by  any  thera- 
peutic system  it  is  unworthy  the  name  of  being 
scientific ;  it  does  not  merit  the  patronage  and  favor 
of  a  science-loving  public.  When  Asia  was  being 
swept  with  cholera  and  allopathy  was  losing  over 
two-thirds  of  its  patients,  Hahnemann  secured  a  d*5  - 
scription  of  a  typical  case,  and  after  comparing  the 
symptoms  with  those  of  the  proved  drugs,  publicly 
declared  that  in  the  first  stage  Camphor  would  re- 
lieve, and  in  the  later  stages  the  remedies  were 
Cuprum  and  Veratrum  album.  When  the  plague 
struck  Europe,  by  these  simple  remedies  Homoeop- 
athy was  able  to  save  three-fourths  of  the  cases, 
while  allopathy  was  still  losing  two-thirds.  It  was 
on  the  result  of  the  law  of  similars  as  applied  to 
cholera  that  hundreds  of  unprejudiced  and  thought- 
ful doctors  of  the  old  way  were  compelled  to  loosen 
their  moorings  and  investigate  the  tenets  of  Ho- 
moeopathy. To  investigate  was  to  be  converted. 
Hereby  hangs  the  most  interesting  chapters  in  the 
life  story  of  Jahr,  Hering,  Lippe,  Holcombe,  Dun- 
ham and  others. 

Homoeopathy  is  to  be  preferred  to  allopathy  be- 
cause it  engenders  confidence  and  enthusiasm.  The 
successful  mechanic  must  know  how  to  use  his  tools, 
when  to  use  them,  and  where  to  use  them.  If  he 
knows  these  things  the  building  of  a  house  becomes 
an  intensely  interesting  piece  of  work.  If  the  sur- 
geon knows  his  anatomy  and  is  skillful  with  his  in- 
struments an  operation  is  a  delightful  task.  The 

37 


chemist  who  understands  the  relationship  of  ele- 
ments is  fascinated  with  his  experiments,  and  the 
doctor  who  knows  the  action  of  all  his  remedies,  and 
the  exact  diseased  state  in  which  they  are  applicable, 
finds  pleasure  and  profit  in  his  practice.  The  Ho- 
moeopath knows  the  drug  action  of  every  remedy 
that  he  uses.  According  to  the  law  of  similars  he 
knows,  then,  in  what  diseased  states  they  are  appli- 
cable. He  has  reason  to  be  confident.  Someone  has 
said,  "He  that  knows  and  knows  that  he  knows  is 
wise,  follow  him." 

A  man  cannot  be  scientific  and  at  the  same  time  be 
ignorant,  prejudiced  or  indolent.  The  medical  stu- 
dent must  answer  these  questions  for  himself : 

First.  Is  the  law  of  similars  true ;  if  not,  why  not  ? 

Second.  Has  any  substitute  been  offered  for  it  ? 
The  Homoeopathic  Principle  Tested. 

Homoeopathy  asserts  that  it  is  true.  For  a  hun- 
dred years  it  has  been  subject  to  investigation;  the 
pioneers  of  Homoeopathy  were  allopaths  who  had  in- 
vestigated it.  Out  of  the  committee  of  five  appoint- 
ed by  the  leading  British  Medical  Society^  to  investi- 
gate and  expose  it  two  were  converted  and  the  other 
three  never  reported. 

Constantine  Hering,  who  became  the  patron  saint 
of  Homoeopathy  in  this  country,  was  similarly  ap- 
pointed by  a  Berlin  Medical  Society  to  investigate  it 
and  to  controvert  it.  His  conversion  resulted.  Our 
late  Dr.  P.  P.  Wells  is  another  who  enjoyed  a  similar 
fate.  It  has  been  so  thoroughly  tried  and  tested  that 
to  deny  that  the  law  exists  is  foolish;  one  might  as 
well  say  that  the  earth  does  not  move  nor  the  apple 
fall.  The  fact  that  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  graduates 
of  her  colleges  spend  the  remainder  of  their  days 
in  its  practice,  while  only  thirty-three  and  one-third 
per  cent,  of  the  old  school  graduates  stay  in  that  pro- 
fession, would  indicate  that  it  was  true.  Almost 
every  consistent  and  energetic  homoeopathic  practi- 
tioner is  making  a  good  income,  and  what  is  better  he 
delights  in  his  work.  Truth  is  never  narrow ;  one  truth 
is  but  a  stepping  stone  to  another.  Standing  upon  the 
vantage  ground  of  truth  all  related  facts  are  re- 
vealed, error  is  dethroned  and  faith  is  supreme.  The 
Homoeopath  is  not  a  skeptic,  he  is  not  working  in  the 
dark,  but  obedient  to.  law  he  loves  it,  and  because  he 
loves  it  he  obeys  it. 

38 


The  Discouragements  of  Allopathic  Treatment. 

Allopathy  has  neither  been  able  to  demonstrate 
the  fallibility  of  the  law  nor  to  formulate  a  substitute, 
therefore  its  practice  is  not  only  empirical  but  law- 
less. Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  more  thoughtful  be- 
come disheartened,  disgusted  and  some  of  them  dis- 
honest ?  Disheartened,  because  like  ships  adrift  they 
have  no  rudder ;  disgusted,  because  they  cannot  cure 
their  patients ;  dishonest,  because  they  have  lost  their 
faith  in  drugs  and  dare  not  retreat. 

For  this  reason  allopathy  in  these  later  days,  fail- 
ing in  medicine,  is  magnifying  surgery.  Nearly  every 
serious  case  is  subjected  to  an  operation.  So 
common  has  this  become,  and  when  surgery  is  not 
indicated,  especially  in  chronic  diseases,  that  even 
among  students  this  expression  is  common  fun — 
"The  operation  was  a  success  but  the  patient  died." 
Even  in  therapeutic  surgery  there  is  confusion; 
what  one  commends  another  condemns.  The  patient 
is  subject  entirely  to  the  caprice  of  his  doctor,  who 
proceeds  to  adopt  a  course  of  treatment  recommended 
by  the  profession  much  as  our  grandmothers  pre- 
scribed catnip  or  peppermint  tea  according  to  the 
dictates  of  the  most  influential  neighbor. 

Homoeopathy  In  Practice. 

Homoeopathy  has  won  its  most  unmistakable 
rights  to  the  favor  of  science  by  its  results  in  prac- 
tice. Here  only  can  we  estimate  the  great  difference 
between  the  schools.  Statistics  talk ;  if  you  were  go- 
ing to  invest  your  money  in  land  you  would  inquire 
into  the  productivity  of  the  soil.  If  you  were  going 
to  invest  in  loans  you  would  demand  the  best  securi- 
ty. In  every  business  enterprise  you  would  count 
the  cost  and  estimate  the  gain.  So,  too,  the  prospect- 
ive doctor  must  ask  of  the  schools  three  questions: 

First.  By  which  system  have  I  the  assurance  of 
the  least  mortality  ? 

Second.  In  which  school  are  my  opportunities  and 
possibilities  the  larger  and  nobler. 

Third.  Which  do  I  want,  science  based  on  law  and 
fact,  or  only  .the  consensus  of  current  opinion? 

Since  statistics  are  open  to  all  they  will  tell  their 
own  story.  Allopaths  never  care  to  refer  to  them, 
they  are  too  embarrassing,  there  is  too  much  to  ex- 
plain. A  man  prominent  in  the  profession  recently 

39 


remarked  that  "with  all  their  increase  of  remedial 
agents  in  the  last  fifty  years,  the  allopaths  have  not 
been  able  to  reduce  the  mortality  in  pneumonia  in  a 
single  per  cent." 

Another  doctor  bewailed  the  lamentable  increase 
of  heart  failures  since  the  introduction  of  coal-tar 
products  for  acute  disease.  The  late  Dr.  Rush,  of 
Chicago,  speaking  on  this  point  said:  "Instead  of 
modern  medicine  limiting  disease  it  has  been  instru- 
mental in  complicating  and  increasing  it."  On  the 
other  hand,  the  mortality  under  homoeopathic  treat- 
ment decreases  with  the  increase  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  Materia  Medica  and  the  laws  of  similars.  In 
every  instance  where  records  have  been  kept  the 
mortality  is  less  under  Homoeopathy  than  under 
allopathy.  The  comparative  statistics  of  Homoeop- 
athy and  allopathy  in  hospital  practice  covering  a 
period  of  five  years  compiled  by  Dr.  Joseph  Buchner, 
of  New  York,  shows  the  death  rate  of  the  two 
schools  to  be  as  follows : 

Disease.  All.  Horn.  Ratio. 

Erysipelas,  23     %  8     %     28 — I 

Diarrhoea,  21.2  "  9      "  23 — 

Fevers,  5.3  "  1.2  "  4— 

Typhus,  16      "  13.3  "  i— 

Pleurisy,  15.6  "  11.3  "  2— 

Inflammation  of  bowels,     41       "  6.1  "  7 — 

Pneumonia,  29.4  "  6.3  "  4 — 

Dysentery,  26.8  "  7.1  "  3— 

Heart  affections,  51.7  "  15.5  "  3 — 

Apoplexy,  48.3  "  28.5  "  1.5— 

Consumption,  48.5  "  38.5  "  i1/,, — 

This  is  typical  of  all  hospital  records. 

A  comparison  in  the  orphan  asylums  in  New 
York  covering  a  period  of  twelve  years  showed  the 
allopathic  death-rate  to  be  one  in  every  forty-one 
cases,  and  the  homoeopathic  death-rate  to  be  one  in 
every  one  hundred  and  forty-six  cases,  or  a  ratio  of 
three  to  one.  Figures  from  the  report  on  the  epi- 
demic of  yellow  fever  in  the  United  States  in  1878 
showed  an  average  mortality  for  the  allopaths  of 
eighteen  and  six-tenths  per  cent.,  and  the  Homoeo- 
paths six  and  six-tenths  per  cent.,  or  a  ratio  of  three 
to  one.  In  the  Irish  famine  of  1847  three  classes  of 

40 


hospitals  were  instituted  with  the  following  results: 

Allopathic  treatment,  death-rate,  thirteen  per  cent. 

No  treatment,  simply  cleanliness  and  good  diet, 
ten  per  cent. 

Homoeopathic  treatment,  death-rate,  two  per  cent. 

Here,  according  to  Kidd,  the  old  school  treatment 
proves  it  to  be  worse  than  none  by  three  per  cent. 

In  the  light  of  such  statistics,  and  many  more  of 
similar  significance,  is  it  a  wonder  that  the  Chicago 
Inter-Ocean  has  said  editorially:  "They  who  have 
not  tried  Homoeopathy  have  not  half  tried  to  get 
well." 

This  evidence  should  have  some  weight  with  the 
prospective  student  of  medicine.  More  than  this, 
Homoeopathy  is  rapidly  becoming  the  leading  prac- 
tice in  many  of  our  cities.  In  fifty  years  fourteen 
thousand  students  have  graduated  from  the  twenty 
homoeopathic  colleges  in  the  United  States.  Ten 
million  patients  are  under  homoeopathic  care,  and 
millions  more  await  homoeopathic  physicians.  To- 
day the  demand  is  in  excess  of  the  supply.  Thou- 
sands of  towns  and  cities  are  yet  without  a  ho- 
moeopathic practitioner  where  handsome  patronage 
is  available.  With  the  least  mortality  the  demand  is 
the  greatest.  With  field  the  broadest  the  opportunity 
is  the  largest. 

Every  allopathic  medical  journal  will  tell  the  stu- 
dent that  the  field  of  medicine  is  full.  State  societies 
are  urging  everywhere  more  astringent  regulations 
to  check  the  product.  A  mighty  army  of  allopaths 
is  jostling  elbow  against  elbow  in  the  mad  race  for  a 
living,  while  thousands  of  inviting  fields  await  the 
coming  of  the  scientific  and  successful  physician,  he 
who  prescribes  by  law  and  system.  Homoeopathy 
cures,  it  is  an  accurate  and  precise  form  of  practice, 
it  appeals  to  reason,  intelligence  and  the  finer  senses 
of  man  when  studied  and  understood,  and  it  offers 
quicker  relief,  speedier  cure,  and  more  permanent 
benefit  to  suffering  mankind  than  any  system  of 
medication  which  has  ever  been  devised.  Its  slogan 
is  "Truth,"  its  history  "Progress."  He  who  enters 
its  profession  will  not  have  made  a  mistake. 


WHY  STUDENTS  OF  MEDICINE    SHOULD    SELECT    THE 
HOMEOPATHIC  SCHOOL. 

BY   "QUE  DITES  VOUS."* 

Among  the  beautiful  works  of  art  that  adorn  our 
national  capital  is  a  splendid  monument  in  granite 
and  bronze  upon  which  may  be  found  this  inscrip- 
tion : 

CHRISTIAN  FREDERICK  SAMUEL  HAHNEMANN, 
DOCTOR  IN  MEDICINE. 

HOFRATH 
LEADER  IN  THE  GREAT  MEDICAL  REFORMATION 

OF  THE 
NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

AND 

FOUNDER  OF  THE 
HOMEOPATHIC  SCHOOL. 

This  monument  was  dedicated  June  21,  1900,  in  the 
city  of  Washington,  D.  C,  by  the  American  Insti- 
tute of  Homoeopathy,  the  oldest  national  medical  so- 
ciety in  America.  One  of  the  foremost  periodicals 
of  the  school  thus  speaks  of  it:  "It  stands  for  what 
we,  as  Homoeopathists,  believe  is  true  and  best  in 
medical  science;  it  stands  for  honesty,  for  liberality, 
for  tolerance ;  it  stands  for  scientific  medicine ;  it 
stands  for  Homoeopathy." 

Hahnemann,  the  founder  of  Homoeopathy,  the 
"Leader  in  the  Great  Medical  Reformation  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century,"  was  a  German  physician,  a 
scholar,  a  philosopher,  and  a  master  of  ten  lan- 
guages. He  was  versed  in  all  branches  of  science 
independent  of  as  well  as  connected  with  medicine, 
and  he  ranked  as  one  of  the  profound  scholars  of 
his  day. 

In  proof  of  this  we  quote  the  following  from  no  less 
an  authority  than  Sir  John  Forbes,  physician-in-or- 
dinary  to  the  Queen :  "No  careful  observer  of  his 
actions,  or  candid  reader  of  his  writings,  can  hesi- 

*Pursuant  to  the  writer's  desire  to  remain  in- 
cognito, unless  first  place  was  attained. 

42 


tate  for  a  moment  to  admit  that  he  was  a  very  ex- 
traordinary man,  one  whose  name  will  descend  to 
posterity  as  the  exclusive  excogitator  and  founder 
of  an  original  system  of  medicine ;  the  remote,  if  not 
the  immediate,  cause  of  more  important  fundamental 
changes  in  the  practice  of  the  healing  art  than  have 
resulted  from  any  since  the  days  of  Galen  himself. 
He  was  undoubtedly  a  man  of  genius  and  a  scholar ; 
a  man  of  indefatigable  industry  and  dauntless 
energy." 

John  Syre  Bristowe,  M.  D.,  in  an  address  before 
the  British  Medical  Association,  speaks  of  Hahne- 
mann  as  follows :  "That  he  had  learning  and  ability 
and  the  power  of  reasoning  is  abundantly  clear.  He 
saw  through  the  prevalent  therapeutic  absurdities 
and  impostures  of  the  day ;  he  laughed  to  scorn  the 
complicated  and  loathsome  nostrums,  which  even  at 
that  time  disgraced  the  pharmacopoeias ;  and  he  ex- 
posed with  no  little  skill  and  success  the  emptiness 
and  worthlessness  of  most  of  the  therapeutical  sys- 
tems which  then  and  theretofore  prevailed."  Valen- 
tine Mott,  the  pride  of  American  surgery,  visited 
Hahnemann,  and  this  is  his  testimony :  "Hahne- 
mann  is  one  of  the  most  accomplished  and  scientific 
physicians  of  the  present  age."  Hufeland  referred 
to  him  as  "one  of  the  most  distinguished  German 
physicians,"  and  Jean  Paul  Richter  denominated 
him  "a  prodigy  of  learning." 

Many  other  instances  might  be  quoted  to  show 
that  Hahnemann  was  the  peer  of  any  of  his  time  in 
medical  learning;  moreover,  he  was  a  philosopher, 
one  who  was  not  only  a  thinker  himself,  but  who 
also  taught  others  how  to  think  and  how  to  investi- 
gate. Such  was  the  Founder  of  Homoeopathy,  the 
Leader  of  the  Great  Medical  Reformation  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century. 

Medical  Science  in  Hahnemann's  Student  Days. 

The  state  of  medical  science  at  the  beginning  of 
the  century  just  past,  especially  in  the  field  of  thera- 
peutics, was  in  a  chaotic  and  unsatisfactory  state. 
The  writers  of  that  time  were  universal  in  their  con- 
demnatory verdicts  and  showed  that  a  rational  and 
scientific  therapeutics  did  not  then  exist.  The  fol- 
lowing are  a  few  of  the  opinions  enunciated  by  the 
medical  fathers  of  the  period :  Bichat,  the  illustrious 

43 


physiologist,  makes  this  humiliating  confession : 
"The  Materia  Medica  is  naught  but  a  conglomera- 
tion of  erroneous  ideas."  Sir  Astley  Cooper  de- 
clares: "The  art  of  medicine  is  founded  on  con- 
jecture and  improved  by  murder."  Cullen,  whose 
Materia  Medica  was  translated  by  Hahnemann, 
says:  "Our  Materia  Medicas  are  fi!led  with  innu- 
merable false  deductions."  Girtanner,  a  very  great 
authority  of  the  eighteenth  century,  writes :  "Our 
Materia  Medica  is  nothing  but  an  industrious  col- 
lection of  the  delusive  observations  that  physicians 
have  made  in  all  ages."  Dr.  Kruger  Hanson,  a  no 
mean  authority,  says:  "Medicine,  as  is  now  practic- 
ed, is  a  pestilence  to  mankind ;  it  has  carried  off  a 
greater  number  of  victims  than  all  the  murderous 
wars  have  ever  done." 

A  Pew  Recent  Opinions. 

Dr.  Claude  Bernard,  the  great  French  physiolo- 
gist, candidly  confesses  "Scientific  medicine  does  not 
exist."  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  showed  his  distrust 
of  prevailing  medicine  by  saying:  "If  all  the  drugs 
were  cast  into  the  sea  it  would  be  so  much  the  bet- 
ter for  men,  and  so  much  the  worse  for  the  fish." 
Dr.  Quain,  editor  of  the  Dictionary  of  Medicine, 
in  an  address  to  the  British  Medical  Association  in 
1873,  says:  "Alas!  our  means  of  curing  disease  do 
not  make  equally  rapid  progress.  This  is  not  as 
some  assert,  because  disease  cannot  be  cured;  it  is 
simply  because  our  knowledge  of  remedies  is  defi- 
cient." Thus  therapeutic  impotency  is  admitted  by 
the  fair-minded  leaders  of  the  dominant  school  and 
by  the  professors  in  its  own  medical  colleges.  All 
this  would  seem  to  be  an  acknowledgment  that  this 
school  is  powerless  to  cure  disease. 

The  Reformation. 

Hahnemann  himself  was  impressed  thoroughly 
with  the  inefficiency  of  medicine  in  disease ;  dis- 
gusted with  his  results  he  abandoned  practice  and 
devoted  himself  to  earning  a  livelihood  by  trans- 
lating •  books  from  other  languages  into  German. 
It  was  while  translating  Cullen's  Materia  Medica 
from  the  English  that  he  was  struck  with 
the  unsatisfactory  explanation  given  by  Cullen  of 
the  cure  of  ague  with  Cinchona  bark.  The  happy 
idea  occurred  to  him  to  test  the  effect  of  the  baric 


44 


on  the  healthy  human  body.  His  own  words  are  as 
follows : 

"For  sake  of  experiment  I  took  for  several  days 
four  drachms  of  good  Cinchona  bark  twice  a  day ; 
my  feet,  finger  tips,  etc.,  first  grew  cold.  I  became 
exhausted  and  s'eepy;  then  my  heart  began  to  pal- 
pitate, my  pulse  became  hard  and  rapid.  I  had  an 
intolerable  anxiety,  trembling,  prostration  in  all  my 
limbs;  then  throbbing  of  the  head,  flushing  of  the 
cheeks,  thirst,  and,  in  short,  all  the  ordinary  symp- 
toms of  intermittent  fever  appeared  one  after  an- 
other, but  without  febrile  rigor.  In  a  word,  even 
the  special  characteristic  symptoms  of  intermittent 
fever,  dullness  of  the  senses,  a  kind  of  stiffness  of 
all  the  joints,  and  in  particular  the  disagreeable 
numb  sensation,  apparently  located  in  the  periosteal 
covering  of  all  the  bones  of  the  body,  made  their  ap- 
pearance. The  paroxysms  lasted  two  or  three  hours 
each  time  and  returned  when  I  repeated  the  dose, 
otherwise  not." 

As  the  fall  of  the  apple  conveyed  to  the  profound 
and  sagacious  philosopher  Newton  the  idea  of  the 
law  of  gravitation,  so  the  physiological  effects  of 
Cinchona  bark  conveyed  to  the  mind  of  the  philo- 
sophical Hahnemann  the  general  law  of  cure  by 
which  diseases  are  to  be  encountered. 

The  law  of  gravitation  had  existed  before  New- 
ton, the  law  of  cure  had  existed  before  Hahnemann, 
even  the  older  writers,  Hippocrates,  Paracelsus, 
Galen  and  Stoerck,  were  at  times  close  upon  it,  but 
it  remained  for  Hahnemann  to  demonstrate  it,  which 
he  proceeded  at  once  to  do,  and  after  six  years  of 
experiment  spent  in  testing  medicines  upon  the 
healthy  human  body  to  determine  their  exact  ef- 
fects,— years  also  devoted  to  observing  the  result 
of  these  experiments  at  the  bedside, — he  published 
to  the  world  in  an  old  school  medical  magazine  the 
law  of  similia  similibus  curentur — "Let  Likes  Be 
Treated  By  Likes,"  the  universal  law  which  is  ap- 
plicable to  the  treatment  of  disease. 

This  "law  of  similars,"  as  it  is  familiarly  called, 
is  in  harmony  with  all  nature.  Likes  beget  likes, 
likes  are  drawn  unto  likes,  a  smile  begets  a  smile,  a 
frown  begets  a  frown.  Like  sounds  produce  har- 
mony, unlike  sounds  produce  discord ;  and  harmony, 
not  discord,  brings  sweet  temper,  appetite  and  good 

45 


digestion.  Sunlight  brings  good  cheer,  darkness 
brings  despondency,  and  so  throughout  the  realm 
of  nature  the  law  of  likes  is  ever  uppermost. 

The  enunciation  of  this  law  was  brought  about 
after  long  years  of  patient  toil  and  research  by  its 
founder;  it  is  not  a  mere  passing  fad,  a  laboratory 
deduction  heralded  today,  doubted  tomorrow  and 
discarded  after  a  wondrous  nine-day  life.  Its  cham- 
pion was  not  one  to  court  an  evanescent  fame  by 
rushing  blindly  into  print.  He  was  sure  of  his 
ground  and  he  spent  six  years  of  toil  and  privation 
in  prosecuting  his  researches.  Sphinx,  pyramid  and 
obelisk  will  become  worn  away  by  the  desert  sands ; 
amphitheatre,  parthenon  and  temple  will  melt  in  the 
glowing  heat  of  the  sun;  feudal  castles,  moss-cov- 
ered and  ivy-grown,  erected  to  commemorate  knight- 
ly deeds  of  chivalry,  will  crumble  to  dust;  even 
Homoeopathy  itself  may  lose  its  name,  but  the 
immutable  law  of  cure,  similia  similibus  curentur, 
resting  on  the  rock  of  truth,  will  last  forever. 

What  Is  Homoeopathy  ? 

Homoeopathy  may  therefore  be  defined  as  the 
science  of  therapeutics  based  on  nature's  law  for 
healing.  It  is  the  science  of  the  selection  of  a  remedy 
that  causes,  in  the  healthy,  effects  similar  to  those 
for  which  it  is  employed  in  disease.  The  methodical 
testing  of  drugs  on  the  healthy  was  first  done  by 
Hahnemann ;  he  saw  at  once  the  fallacy  of  obtaining 
a  knowledge  of  drug  action  by  testing  upon  animals, 
knowing  that  the  effects  of  medicines  vary  accord- 
ing to  the  animal  experimented  upon.  Thus  it  is 
known  that  rabbits  will  eat  Belladonna  leaves,  pigs 
will  eat  of  Ntix  vomica  freely,  hogs  and  horses  will 
eat  Aconite,  all  of  which  substances  are  poisonous 
to  man.  We  know,  too,  that  drugs  affect  different 
animals  differently,  thus  Ipecac  is  an  emetic  to  man 
and  dogs,  but  not  to  rabbits.  Conium  will  poison 
the  horse,  but  not  the  ox.  Hence  the  necessity  of 
testing  drugs  on  the  healthy  human  body  to  deter- 
mine their  rightful  actions.  This  testing  must  be 
done  singly,  for  to  obtain  the  pure  action  of  a  drug 
it  must  be  administered  singly  and  alone,  unmixed 
with  any  other  substance.  If  tested  singly  surely  it 
must  be  given  singly.  If  given  singly  there  is  not 
the  necessity  for  so  large  a  dose,  and  this  has  led  to 


the  small  doses  of  the  system,  for  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  and  experience  verifies  the  supposition  that 
a  single  drug  acts  better  when  uninterfered  with  by 
any  other  substance,  and  so  polypharmacy  is  no  part 
of  Homoeopathy.  Again,  it  has  been  found  that  the 
dose  repetition  is  not  needed  so  frequently.  There- 
fore to  recapitulate  the  fundamental  features  of 
Homoeopathy  we  say: 

First.  Disease  is  manifested  by  its  symptoms — all 
the  symptoms — or,  by  what  we  term  the  totality  of 
the  symptoms  of  a  given  case. 

Second.  Knowledge  of  drug  action  must  be  ob- 
tained by  experimentation  upon  the  healthy  human 
body,  and  this  has  been  largely  done  for  us  by  the 
early  workers  in  the  school. 

Third.  The  curative  relation  between  these  two 
sets  of  phenomena  is  by  virtue  of  the  "law  of 
similars"  or  similia  similibus  curentur. 

Fourth.  The  selected  remedy  should  be  adminis- 
tered singly,  uncombined  with  any  other;  hence  the 
doctrine  of  the  single  remedy. 

Fifth.  It  should  be  given  in  the  smallest  doses 
that  will  cure;  hence  the  minimum  dose. 

Sixth.  As  enough  is  sufficient  the  dose  should  not 
be  unnecessarily  repeated. 

All  these  topics  are  capable  of  a  wide  expansion 
and  homoeopathic  physicians  are  familiar  with  all 
their  phases. 

Homoeopathy  therefore  is  a  general  fact, — a 
principle  or  law  of  nature ;  it  is  a  practical  fact ;  it 
stands  upon  its  comparative  merits ;  it  is  simple  and 
intelligible;  it  gains  by  comparison;  it  is  a  medical 
treatment  for  all  time  and  applicable  to  all  forms  of 
disease,  new  as  well  as  old.  It  is  a  practical  guide,  a 
guide  to  the  choice  of  medicine,  not  of  the  dose.  It 
aims  to  eradicate  or  permanently  cure  disease.  It 
economizes  the  vital  forces.  It  is  gentle  and  agree- 
able. It  administers  one  remedy  at  a  time.  It  is 
applicable  to  acute  as  well  as  to  chronic  diseases. 
It  is  ever  prepa'red  to  meet  any  new  form  of  sick- 
ness, and  by  it  a  physician  is  enabled  to  treat  dis- 
eases that  he  never  saw  or  heard  described.  It  car- 
ries out  in  detail  what  all  medicine  does  in  general 
It  is  the  only  system  that  includes  the  three  great 
divisions  of  therapeutics,  namely,  preventive  medi- 
cine, palliative  medicine  and  curative  medicine. 

47 


While  curative  medicine  is  its  specialty,  preventive 
medicine  always  and  palliative  medicine  only  when 
no  harm  may  be  inflicted  by  the  agencies  is  employ- 
ed. Homoeopathy's  principles  will  stand  the  test  of 
scientific  inquiry,  her  methods  will  bear  the  critical 
investigations — in  fact,  these  are  invited. 

What  Homoeopathy  Is  Not. 

Homoeopathy  is  not  an  irregular  practice;  it  is 
founded  upon  a  law.  Twenty  physicians  were  once 
called  upon  to  prescribe  for  a  case  of  illness. 
The  same  symptoms  were  detailed  to  each.  Ten 
were  homoeopathic  physicians,  and  all  prescribed  the 
same  remedy.  Eight  of  the  ten  allopaths  prescribed 
forty-two  different  medicines,  in  which  no  two  pre- 
scriptions were  alike.  The  other  two  did  not  re- 
spond to  the  invitation,  preferring  not  to  exhibit 
their  therapeutic  "regularity." 

Homoeopathy  is  not  unscientific  practice.  It  is 
not  opposed  to  pathology;  it  regards  pathology,  but 
not  as  a  basis  for  treatment ;  it  recognizes  that  a  sys- 
tem of  medicine  founded  on  the  shifting  sands  of  pa- 
thology cannot  be  scientific.  It  is  not  the  "little  pills." 
Homoeopathy  was  a  working  system  long  before  lit- 
tle pills  were  invented;  they  are  simply  convenient 
vehicles  for  the  pleasant  administration  of  medi- 
cines. It  is  .not  quackery;  quackery  is  secret  and 
Homoeopathy  is  open  to  the  world  and  courts  the 
fullest  investigation  of  physician,  student  and  pa- 
tron. It  is  willing  to  stand  upon  its  merits,  and  it 
always  gains  by  comparison.  It  is  not  a  treatment 
according  to  fashion, — now  anodynes,  now  germi- 
cides, now  serums,  now  blue  glass,  now  creosote, 
now  sulphuretted  hydrogen,  now  anti-toxines.  The 
popular  panacea  of  today,  speeding  to  oblivion  sup- 
ported only  by  the  ephemeral  theories  of  pathology, 
is  no  part  of  it.  Its  progress  consists  in  a  develop- 
ment of  its  Materia  Medica  and  a  better  understand- 
ing of  disease.  It  is  not  a  faith  cure ;  Homoeopathy, 
it  is  acknowledged,  is  eminently  successful  in  chil- 
dren's diseases,  and  in  childhood  the  faith  element  is 
small;  also,  it  is  successful  in  the  treatment  of 
animals,  and  here  faith  is  wanting.  While  faith  and 
hope  in  all  cases  of  illness  conduce  to  recovery,  and 
are  therefore  most  desirable,  they  are  no  more  essen- 
tial to  homoeopathic  practice  than  they  are  to  any 


other  medical  system.  It  is  not  an  uncertainty ; 
those  who  have  tried  it  at  the  bedside  know  this  bet- 
ter than  those  whose  knowledge  is  obtained  from  its 
antagonists.  It  is  not  an  infinitesimal  dose;  this  is 
a  popular  misconception  fostered  diligently  and  per- 
haps ignorantly  by  the  opponents  of  our  system. 
Similia  similibus  curentur  says  nothing  of  the  dose. 
A  homoeopathic  cure  may  be,  and  is,  often  wrought 
with  the  massive  doses  of  allopathy.  Experience, 
however,  shows  that  small  doses  act  better  and  with 
less  shock  to  the  system.  It  is  not  magic,  though 
cures  made  by  it  would  almost  seem  to  border  there- 
on, nor  is  it  mysterious,  nor  a  popular  delusion,  nor 
mesmerism,  nor  mental  healing. 

By  Homoeopathy  it  is  not  meant,  for  example,  as 
our  opponents  assert  to  ridicule  us,  that  if  a  man  be 
poisoned  he  must  take  more  poison;  that  to  remove 
a  sliver  from  the  finger  another  must  be  introduced; 
that  to.  cure  a  burn  one  must  thrust  the  burnt  part 
into  the  fire;  that  to  drink  on  if  one  has  drunk  too 
much;  nor  to  strike  the  place  that  was  struck;  nor 
to  swallow  a  tape  worm  to  remove  one.  These  in- 
terpretations of  Homoeopathy  and  of  our  law  were 
written  with  the  finger  of  ignorance  upon  the  ragged 
page  of  prejudice,  and  we  stoop  not  to  notice  them 
further. 

What  Is  a  Homoeopathic  Physician  ? 

The  definition  adopted  by  our  national  organiza- 
tion is  as  follows :  "A  homoeopathic  physician  is  one 
who  adds  to  his  knowledge  of  medicine  a  special 
knowledge  of  homoeopathic  therapeutics  and  ob- 
serves the  law  of  similia.  All  that  pertains  to  the 
great  field  of  medical  learning  is  his,  by  tradition, 
by  inheritance,  by  right."  Thus  a  homoeopathic 
physician  possesses  everything  that  is  possessed  by 
allopathic  physicians,  and  in  •  addition  thereto  the 
science  of  therapeutics.  Who  would  be  a  physician 
lacking  this  accomplishment? 

Says  a  writer  in  one  of  our  principal  periodicals: 
"We  of  the  homoeopathic  profession  are  the  col- 
leagues of  the  old  school  whether  they  will  or  no; 
we  study  the  same  books ;  read  the  same  periodicals ; 
discuss  the  same  questions  from  the  same  view- 
points in  our  medical  conventions  and  at  our  fire- 
sides; their  bacteria  are  our  bacteria;  their  germi- 

49 


cides  are  our  germicides;  their  protozoa  are  our 
protozoa ;  their  toxines  are  our  toxines ;  their  pallia- 
tives are  our  palliatives,  and  their  surgery  is  our 
surgery.  Only  in  therapeutics  do  we  differ."  Here 
Homoeopathy  particularizes  while  allopathy  general- 
izes. For  instance,  a  number  of  children  are  ill  with 
a  common  disease;  the  allopathic  doctor  will  give 
them  all  the  same  remedy,  while  the  Homoeopath  pre- 
scribes according  to  individualities;  he  recognizes 
the  fact  that  no  two  different  temperaments  can  be 
sick  in  exactly  the  same  way;  that,  for  instance, 
while  pneumonia  is  pneumonia,  it  affects  different 
individuals  differently.  Nothing  in  Homoeopathy 
is  routine  or  haphazard. 

Homoeopathy  Enables  Us   to  Prevent  the  Development  of 
Disease. 

All  homoeopathic  physicians  are  familiar  with  the 
power  of  remedies  in  preventing  the  full  develop- 
ment of  disease ;  it  was  found  long  ago  that  cholera 
could  be  prevented;  that  very  many  acute  diseases, 
such  as  colds  in  the  head  or  the  starting  of  a  sore 
throat,  can  be  prevented  at  the  onset.  That  these 
would  go  on  to  a  full  development  and  require  many 
days  in  their  cure  without  the  proper  homoeopathic 
treatment  is  also  well  known. 

The  Duration  of  Disease  Is  Shortened  Under  Homoeopathy. 

In  nearly  all  text-books  on  the  practice  of  medi- 
cine one  will  find  a  regular  course  of  duration  of 
most  acute  diseases  set  down,  a  course  which  a 
typical  case  of  the  malady  is  supposed  to  run;  thus 
typhoid  fever  has  a  usual  course  of  four  weeks  and 
then  comes  the  period  that  is  termed  "convales- 
cence," and  this  is  oftentimes  longer  than  the  dis- 
ease itself.  Whooping  cough  is  one  of  the  diseases 
to  which  is  assigned  a  usual  run ;  also,  mumps,  scar- 
let fever,  etc.  The  course  of  these  diseases  is  much 
shorter  under  homoeopathic  treatment,  which  mani- 
fold statistics  prove;  this  means  a  saving  of  work- 
ing days  for  the  bread-earner  and  a  lessening  of 
anxiety  in  the  household.  Under  Homoeopathy  the 
duration  of  acute  diseases  is  reduced  from  one-half 
to  one-third  that  occupied  by  any  other  medical 
treatment.  There  is  little  or  no  time  wasted  in  con- 
valescence. Our  remedies  go  straight  to  the  dis- 
eased part ;  do  not  disturb  other  organs  or  functions, 

50 


and  when  the  diseased  part  is  well  the  patient  is  well. 
Under  allopathic  treatment  the  idea  is  to  entice  the 
disease  to  healthy  parts  in  the  hope  that  these  healthy 
parts  will  succeed  in  throwing  it  off ;  if  this  is  ac- 
complished, there  are  a  lot  of  tired  organs  and 
tissues  to  rest  and  regain  their  power,  and  this  is 
what  is  meant  by  "convalescence"  or  the  getting- 
well-  period.  There  are  people  whose  vocation 
necessitates  a  daily  appearance ;  for  instance,  opera 
singers  and  theatrical  performers;  these  have  long 
ago  learned  the  saving  of  time  and  engagements  by 
the  use  of  Homoeopathy. 

The  Economical  Side  of  Homoeopathy/ 

There  are  those  who  fancy  that  homoeopathic  phy- 
sicians are  higher  priced  than  those  of  the  other 
schools.  It  is  a  universally  accepted  fact  that  the 
best  is  always  the  cheapest  in  the  end,  especially  in 
commercial  fields,  and  this  idea  should  certainly  pre- 
vail in  the  field  of  medicine.  The  homoeopathic  phy- 
sician Has  a  right  to  charge  more,  for  the  reason  that 
he  dispenses  his  own  medicines,  but  it  is  found  that 
his  charges  are  fully  fifty  per  cent,  less  than  the  com- 
bined charges  of  the  old  school  physician  and  the 
druggist.  Druggist's  bills  are  proverbially  high  and 
long ;  on  the  other  hand,  homoeopathic  medicines  are 
comparatively  inexpensive. 

This  question  of  the  cost  is  well  shown  in  homoeo- 
pathic institutions  throughout  the  country,  where  the 
cost  of  medicines  is  not  one-half  that  of  the  hos- 
pitals and  institutions  of  the  other  school.  As  an 
example  of  this,  take  the  case  of  the  Protestant  Half- 
Orphan  Asylum  in  New  York.  It  was  under  allo- 
pathic control  for  seven  years,  and  the  cost  of  the 
medicines  was  two  hundred  and  forty  dollars.  It  was 
then  under  homoeopathic  control  for  ten  years,  and 
thirty-five  dollars  only  was  expended  for  drugs,  and 
this  is  the  usual  proportion  in  the  institutions  of  each 
school.  Homoeopathy  has  a  great  advantage  over 
allopathy  financially,  in  that  many  families  can  treat 
themselves  for  the  simple  ailments,  and  with  perfect 
safety.  For,  as  has  been  shown,  many  diseases  may 
be  prevented  or  their  course  greatly  shortened  by  the 
timely  administration  of  the  proper  remedy,  and  the 
prescribing  of  which  is  no  secret  art  or  special  diffi- 
culty. Though  medicine  is  hemmed  in  by  absurd 


laws  to  protect  the  people,  who,  by  the  way,  have 
never  asked  this  protection  (it  was  the  doctors 
themselves  that  wanted  it),  there  is  as  yet  no  law  to 
prevent  a  person  doctoring  himself,  and  this  can 
certainly  be  done  more  safely  by  the  homoeopathic 
method. 

Another  thing  that  Homoeopathy  does  is  to  eradi- 
cate the  tendency  to  disease,  and  thus  professional 
visits  are  reduced  in  number  to  the  benefit  of  the 
purse.  Fewer  visits  are  as  a  rule  required  in  Homoeo- 
pathy, for  the  giving  of  strong  doses,  as  is  practiced 
by  the  other  school,  necessitates  frequent  visits  in 
order  to  watch  the  action  of  the  drug. 

What  Homoeopathy  Has  Done. 

It  has  abolished  bleeding,  and  bleeding  was  the 
accepted  treatment  of  all  diseases  for  a  number  of 
years  after  the  introduction  of  Homoeopathy.  A 
book  was  written  on  the  subject  as  late  as  1835,  and 
the  operation  was  in  full  sway  in  1848.  In  1860 
physicians  bled  for  scarlet  fever,  and  in  1876  for 
pneumonia,  but  today  it  is  not  done  even  in  apoplexy, 
the  last  disease  in  which  it  was  given  up. 

It  has  abolished  leeches.  In  1856  about  800,000 
leeches  were  imported  into  New  York,  and  one  com- 
mercial house  was  almost  wholly  devoted  to  that 
traffic.  Today  the  song  of  the  leech  is  heard  no 
more  in  the  land. 

It  has  reduced  the  death  rate  in  cholera  from  fifty 
per  cent,  to  fifteen;  yellow  fever  from  eighteen  per 
cent,  to  six  per  cent. ;  peritonitis  from  thirty-two  to 
seven  per  cent.,  and  erysipelas  from  eight  to  one 
per  cent.  It  has  robbed  pneumonia  of  its  terrors 
and  reduced  its  death  rate  from  twenty-four  to  six 
per  cent.  Scarlet  fever  has  no  frightful  mortality 
under  its  beneficent  treatment,  and  the  scarlet  flag 
of  warning  is  seldom  changed  into  the  black  flag  of 
death.  It  has  robbed  the  sick  room  of  the  dangefs 
of  poisonous  drugs,  and  hence  drug  habits  under 
homoeopathic  treatment  are  unknown.  Diphtheria 
is  far  more  amenable  to  homoeopathic  methods;  even 
the  claimed  improvement  by  antitoxine,  which  pos- 
sibly is  a  crude  form  of  Homoeopathy,  does  not  ap- 
proach our  results.  It  has  instituted  investigations 
never  before  scientifically  and  accurately  under- 
taken which  have  been  of  incalculable  benefit  to  hu- 

52 


inanity.  It  has  widened  the  field  of  application  of 
drugs  to  disease  by  these  investigations  to  an  al- 
most undreamed  of  extent. 

It  has  not  only  reduced  the  mortality  of  our  most 
virulent  diseases,  but  it  has  cut  down  the  death  rate 
in  our  institutions  in  a  marvellous  manner.  In  Cook 
County,  111.,  Hospital,  the  great  Chicago  hospital 
where  allopaths,  eclectics  and  Homoeopaths  have  rep- 
resentation, the  ratio  of  mortality  is  decidedly  in 
favor  of  Homoeopathy ;  next  best  is  the  eclectic  sys- 
tem, and  least  favorable  the  allopathic,  which  lost 
twice  as  many  as  the  homoeopathic,  and  thirty  per 
cent,  more  than  the  eclectics,  and  their  patients  spend 
twice  as  many  days  in  the  hospitals  as  ours.  In 
Melbourne,  Australia,  the  death  rate  of  typhoid  fever 
in  an  epidemic  a  few  years  ago  was  thirty  to  fifteen 
cent.  in*the  allopathic  hospital  and  nine  per  cent,  in 
the  homoeopathic  hospital.  The  mortality  in  the 
three  leading  hospitals  of  New  York  city  the  first 
year  the  large  homoeopathic  hospital  was  organized 
was  as  follows :  Bellevue  Hospital,  12^2  per  cent. ; 
Charity  Ffospital  8^2  per  cent. ;  Homoeopathic  Hos- 
pital, 6  per  cent. 

Statistics  might  be  quoted  to  an  almost  endless 
extent  showing  that  the  mortality  under  ho- 
moeopathic treatment  is  five  to  fifty  per  cent, 
less  than  under  any  other  system  of  medicine.  Those 
who  are  interested  in  this  question  will  find  further 
data  in  the  little  work  by  Dr.  T.  L.  Bradford,  of 
Philadelphia,  recently  published,  entitled  "The  Logic 
of  Figures,"  from  which  much  of  the  foregoing  is 
taken. 

The  Growth  of  Homoeopathy. 

Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  was  a  scholar,  a  delight- 
ful poet  and  doubtless  a  good  physician,  but  when 
he  turned  his  hand  to  prophecy  he  made  a  dismal 
failure.  He  prophesized  the  death  of  Homoeopathy 
in  a  prophetic  article  written  in  1848.  At  the 
threshold  of  the  twentieth  century  there  are  more 
institutions,  hospitals,  public  and  private,  in  the 
United  States  than  there  were  practicing  physicians 
of  Homoeopathy  in  1848.  Professor  Holmes  lived  to 
realize  his  prophetic  failure. 

In  1875  there  was  established  in  the  University  of 
Michigan  a  homoeopathic  department.  Michigan 

53 


was  the  first  of  our  States  not  only  to  recognize  the 
claims  of  the  new  school,  but  also  that  the  taxpayers 
who  supported  State  medicine,  many  of  whom,  and 
especially  of  the  better  and  thinking  class,  should  not 
contribute  alone  to-the  education  of  physicians  of  a 
school  in  which  they  had  no  faith.  About  that  time 
there  was  much  bitterness  shown  our  school,  not  by 
the  people  nor  the  authorities,  but  by  the  physicians 
of  the  dominant  school. 

A  physician  who  was  practicing  in  a  town  of 
Southwestern  Missouri,  and  a  graduate  of  the  old 
school  department  of  that  university,  wrote  a  letter 
to  the  "Detroit  Review"  bemoaning  the  disgrace  of 
admitting  Homoeopathy  to  the  university.  He  stated 
in  his  communication  that  Homoeopathy  was  dead  in 
his  part  of  the  country ;  that  there  was  'only  one 
homoeopathic  physician  within  a  radius  of  one  hun- 
dred miles  from  his  town,  and  that  he  was  on  his 
last  legs.  He  said  that  he  felt  like  turning  his  diploma 
with  the  face  toward  the  wall  because  of  the.  in- 
dignity thus  brought  upon  his  Alma  Mater.  Today 
the  number  of  homoeopathic  physicians  within  a 
radius  of  one  hundred  miles  from  this  town  has  in- 
creased over  three  thousand  two  hundred  per  cent., 
and  it  is  far  from  being  a  populous  community. 

Ever  since  Homoeopathy  was  promulgated  it  has 
been  declared  either  dead  or  dying,  but  somehow  or 
other,  like  Banquo's  -ghost,  it  will  not  down. 

During  the  last  two  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century  the  growth  of  Homoeopathy  has  been  com- 
mensurate with  that  of  any  previous  period.  Let  us 
compare  briefly  the  status  of  the  school  in  1880  and 
in  1900: 

In  1880  there  was  one  national  homoeopathic 
body ;  in  1900,  ten. 

In  1880  there  were  twenty-three  State  societies; 
in  1900,  thirty-four. 

In  1880  there  were  ninety-nine  local  societies  and 
homoeopathic  clubs ;  in  1900,  one  hundred  and  fifty. 

In  1880  there  were  eleven  homoeopathic  colleges; 
in  1900,  twenty-two. 

In  1880  there  were  sixteen  homoeopathic  jour- 
nals  ;  in  1900,  thirty- three. 

In  1880  there  were  thirty-eight  general  homoeo- 
pathic hospitals ;  in  1900,  seventy-six. 

54 


In  1880  there  were  thirty  dispensaries;  in  1900, 
sixty-three. 

In  addition  to  this  there  are  about  two  hundred 
and  fifty  private  hospitals  and  sanitariums  devoted 
to  the  treatment  of  patients  by  the  homoeopathic 
method.  Thus  it  is  seen  that  there  has  been  a  doub- 
ling of  these  figures  all  along  the  line  in  the  past 
twenty  years. 

The  Persecutions  of  Homoeopathy. 

.  Every  reform  must  be  baptized  in  the  waters  of 
tribulation  before  it  will  be  received  by  the  public. 
As  Homoeopathy  was  the  only  innovation  that  ever 
invaded  the  medical  field  it  was  not  to  be  expected 
that  it  should  escape  the  fate  of  all  advanced  ideas. 
"It  is  not  in  Jerusalem  alone  that  the  prophets  are 
stoned."  The  abolition  of  polypharmacy  and  the 
revenues  from  prescriptions  first  incited  the  drug- 
gists to  revolt  against  the  system,  and  they  expended 
their  wrath  upon  the  founder.  In  later  years  the 
success  of  its  practitioners  over  those  of  the  domi- 
nant school  excited  the  bitterest  jealousy,  and  many 
unkind  words  have  been  spoken  on  each  side  even 
while  both  are  honestly  endeavoring  to  achieve  the 
physical  regeneration  of  man.  New  truths  have  al- 
ways been  persecuted:  When  Peruvian  bark  was 
introduced  it  was  denominated  a  deadly  sin  to  take 
it;  anaesthesia  met  with  similar  opposition;  Harvey, 
the  discoverer  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood,  was 
considered  a  mad  man ;  when  the  stethoscope  was 
introduced  it  was  condemned,  a  physician  of  that 
period  saying  in  ridicule  thereof,  "My  ear  is  not 
fine  enough  to  hear  the  grass  grow;"  when  per- 
cussion of  the  chest  was  suggested  as  a  means  of 
diagnosis  it  was  likened  unto  rapping  on  the  outside 
of  a  bottle  of  wine  to  determine  its  quality ;  Galileo 
uttered  a  blasphemy  when  he  said,  "E  pur  si 
muove ;"  Olympic  laughter  greeted  the  steamboat ; 
a  "Coo"  was  on  the  track  of  the  locomotive ;  the  dis- 
covery of  vaccination  by  Jenner  was  received  with 
ridicule  and  contempt;  Daguerre  was  dubbed  a 
lunatic  for  discovering  photography ;  even,  the  hum- 
ble potato  upon  its  introduction  into  Scotland  was 
violently  denounced  as  unholy  because  not  referred 
to  in  the  Bible.  Homceopathists  have  been  called 
magicians  of  the  school  of  Zoroaster,  more  skillful 

55 


charmers  than  Circe  or  Medea,  more  dexterous  than 
Cagliostro  or  Houdin.  Homoeopathy  has  been  no 
exception  to  the  fate  of  great  reforms. 

Arguments  Against  Homoeopathy. 

The  arguments  against  Homoeopathy  from  the 
earliest  time  have  been  chiefly  furnished  by  those 
who  have  never  investigated  it,  or  whose  knowledge 
of  it  has  been  derived  from  the  writers  of  previous 
denunciations. 

These  so-called  arguments  have  been  bitter,  and 
such  terms  as  "homoeopathic  quackery,"  "renegades," 
"absurdity,"  "delusion,"  "assassin,"  "monstrosity," 
"odious  system,"  "disgusting  practice,"  "loathsome 
remedies,"  "fraud,"  "humbug,"  etc.,  gives  evidence 
of  their  kind.  Vituperation  is  even  still  used  by  the 
professors  in  some  of  the  allopathic  colleges.  We 
could  refer  to  one  who  always  speaks  of  Homoe- 
opathy as  "pseudo-medicine."  These  are  the 
weapons  of  those  whose  prejudice  prevents  their  try- 
ing the  system, — and  by  the  way  it  takes  no  small 
amount  of  mental  acumen  to  try  the  system  intelli- 
gently. It  is  not  learned  in  a  day.  Like  all  the  true 
sciences  it  is  exact,  but  difficult.  Those  who  claim 
to  practice  both  ways  are  those  who  are  in  business 
"for  revenue  only,"  and  their  knowledge  of  Homoe- 
opathy is  often  as  crude  as  is  their  knowledge  of 
medicine  in  general.  They  are  the  "Docs"  of  the 
profession. 

The  following  from  the  Philadelphia  Medical 
Journal  of  as  late  a  date  as  March,  1900,  shows  that 
the  "arguments"  against  Homoeopathy  continue: 

"The  downright  scoundrels,  the  out-and-out  nos- 
trum traders,  the  sectarians,  are  treated  by  us  as  the 
prairie  wolf  and  tramp  dogs,  the  solitary  elephants, 
the  forest  cats,  etc.,  are  treated  by  their  brethren. 
We  expel  them,  and  they  are  known  as  enemies  for- 
ever. Of  course  they  continue  to  use  the  education 
stolen  from  the  profession,  and  their  knowledge  of 
civilized  life,  to  commit  depredations  on  their  former 
masters."  This  is  in  accord  with  regular  ethics. 
This  is  from  an  editorial;  is  it  a  wonder  that  the 
editor  was  soon  removed  from  his  position? 

A  recent  writer  against  Homoeopathy  gave  seven 
lines  from  one  of  our  chief  works,  Hahnemann's 
Organon,  a  book  of  300  pages,  to  furnish  his  read- 

56 


ers  with  an  "example  of  its  style."  Could  one  judge 
of  the  style  of  the  Bible  by  selecting  the  first  seven 
lines  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  as  a  sample. 

Is  Homoeopathy  Sectarian  Medicine  ? 

Sectarians  we  are  in  the  same  sense  that  a  man 
may  be  a  Christian  and  yet  a  protestant,  an  Ameri- 
can citizen  and. yet  a  republican,  a  physician  and  yet 
a  Homoeopath.  Sectarianism  is  the  offspring  of 
originality  and  the  guardian  of  progress. 

We  are  accused  of  trading  on  a  name  as  if  sec- 
tarianism was  fanaticism.  The  apostle  Paul  was 
accused  of  belonging  to  the  hated  sect  of  Nazarenes. 
Josephus  styled  the  Christians  a  sect.  We  are  coolly 
asked  to  abandon  the  name,  as  England  asked  the 
early  colonists  to  abandon  their  ideas  of  freedom. 
"True  sectarianism,"  says  Helmuth,  "is  compatible 
with  the  highest  degree  of  learning ;  whilst  it  is  firm 
for  the  preservation  of  rights,  it  has  the  greatest 
toleration  for  the  opinions  of  others.  In  fact,  I 
might  say  throughout  the  world,  in  theology  and  in 
medicine,  sectarianism  is  the  authorized  expression 
of  doctrine,  the  definite  intellectual  expression  of 
belief.  I  hold  that  if  sectarianism  had  been  a  bar 
to  its  progress  medicine  today  would  be  an  incon- 
gruous mass  of  poorly  ascertained  facts;  for,  from 
the  time  that  the  sons  of  Hippocrates  founded  the 
dogmatists  to  the  period  when  the  allopathic  school 
forced  the  Homoeopaths  to  become  sectarian,  the  his- 
tory of  medicine  is  the  history  of  sects,  all  having 
more  or  less  influence  upon  the  progress  of  medical 
science;  nay,  more,  the  majority  of  the  illustrious 
leaders  whose  names  have  descended  to  our  times  as 
acknowledged  fathers  in  medicine  were  sectarians." 

No  Homoeopathic  Representation. 

It  has  been  said  that  we  have  no  representation 
in  the  armies  and  navies  of  the  world,  nor  in  na- 
tional medical  service,  nor  in  railway  or  steamship 
employment,  nor  in  life  insurance  companies  as  ex- 
aminers, nor  in  city,  county,  or  State  institutions. 
Furthermore  it  has  been  declared  that  the  homoeo- 
pathic school  is  not  recognized  by  scientific  societies 
at  home  or  abroad,  and  that  it  has  made  no  advance- 
ment in  scientific  knowledge  since  its  foundation. 
All  these  statements  are  false.  In  the  late  war  with 
Spain  nine  of  our  surgeons  were  in  service,  three 

57 


with  the  rank  of  major.  Many  homoeopathic  phy- 
sicians and  surgeons  are  connected  with  railway 
medical  service,  with  insurance  companies  as  ex- 
aminers. Many  United  States  pension  examiners 
are  Homoeopaths.  There  are  eight  homoeopathic 
hospitals  for  the  insane  under  State  control  and 
their  records  are  emphatically  in  favor  of  our  system. 
Three  State  universities  have  homoeopathic  depart- 
ments, Two  city  universities  and  one  other  have  ho- 
moeopathic schools  conected  with  them.  As  to  our 
scientific  investigations,  that  we  have  made  them,  no 
further  evidence  is  necessary  than  to  point  to  the  in- 
stances wherein  the  old  school  has  appropriated  our 
remedies  and  the  uses  of  them  as  derived  from  our 
investigations  in  corpore  sano. 

Inroads  of  the   Dominant   School  in  Homoeopathic  Drug 
Employment. 

The  use  of  Aconite  by  the  old  school  is  compara- 
tively recent,  but  the  drug  was  used  by  Hahnemann 
three-quarters  of  a  century  ago  for  the  same  indica- 
tions that  it  furnishes  today.  Hahnemann,  one  hun- 
dred years  ago,  suggested  Belladonna  for  the  same 
uses  to  which  it  has  been  applied  during  the  past  two 
decades.  Phillips,  a  few  years  ago,  in  a  work  on 
Materia  Medica,  speaks  of  Rhus  in  paralysis;  we 
have  used  it  since  1816.  He  gave  Bryonia  anew  to 
the  world.  We  knew  it  and  used  it  in  1816.  Cu- 
prum is  a  new  remedy  of  the  old  school ;  we  used  it 
in  1805;  tne  same  is  true  of  Pulsatilla,  Camphor, 
Ledum,  Thuja,  Cannabis,  Euphrasia  and  many 
others.  The  use  of  Castor  old,  Magnesia  sul- 
phurica  and  Podophyllum  in  dysentery;  Mercurius 
cyanatus  in  diphtheria ;  Gelsemium  in  colds ;  Hama- 
melis  in  haemorrhoids;  Phosphorus  in  pneumonia 
and  fatty  degeneration ;  Lycopodium  in  uric  acid  de- 
posits in  the  urine ;  Apis  mellifica,  or  the  poison  of 
the  honey  bee,  in  rheumatism, — are  among  the  allo- 
pathic "finds"  of  the  last  twenty  years.  For  these 
affections  Homoeopaths  have  used  the  same  remedies 
for  over  fifty  years,  and  in  many  instances  a  hun- 
dred years.  The  poison  of  the  rattlesnake  is  just 
now  proving  a  great  remedy  in  cases  of  the  bubonic 
plague  in  India, — our  own  Crotalus,  seventy-five 
years  old !  This  is  the  very  genius  of  Homoeopathy. 


Bacteriological  Therapeutics. 

The  late  Rudolf  Virchow,  one  of  the  greatest 
medical  men  whom  science  has  produced,  announc- 
ed a  short  time  before  his  death  that  modern  bac- 
teriological therapeutics  rested  on  a  homoeopathic 
basis.  The  same  may  perhaps  be  said  of  antitoxine ; 
of  the  Pasteur  treatment  for  hydrophobia ;  of  vacci- 
nation or  the  treatment  of  tuberculosis  by  tuberculin 
or  neuclein.  While  these  methods  have  not  been 
generally  approved  by  homoeopathic  physicians  be- 
cause irregular  in  their  genesis,  it  is  a  source  of 
satisfaction  that  the  very  acme  of  old  school  scien- 
tific research  verifies  our  principles.  We  cannot, 
however,  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  many  bac- 
teriological practices  are  steeped  with  commercial  in- 
terests. The  pharmaceutical  laboratories  do  as  much, 
if  not  more,  to  further  the  use  of  these  various  sub- 
stances than  physicians  themselves,  yet  it  would 
seem  that  even  the  latter  are  not  guiltless.  "Behring 
has  patented  his  diphtheria  antitoxine  serum  on  the 
continent ;  Koch  for  years  has  made  a  princely 
royalty  out  of  his  lymph ;  little  Denmark  has 
boomed  her  butter  trade  through  tuberculin."  Neu- 
clein comes  high,  and  the  profession  would  seem 
to  be  on  the  search  always  for  some  revenue  produc- 
ing serum,  or  some  "gusher"  of  a  toxin  well. 

Achievements  of  Hahnemann. 

No  better  summary  of  the  achievements  of  Hahne- 
mann exist  than  the  following  written  by  the  late 
Dr.  Selden  H.  Talcott,  superintendent  of  the  Mid- 
dletown  State  Hospital,  New  York :  • 

"i.  He  portrayed  the  true  nature  of  disease  and 
described  it  as  a  disturbance  of  vital  force. 

"2.  He  enunciated  the  law  of  similars  embodied  in 
the  doctrine,  'similia  similibus  curentur,' — a  law 
on  which  scientific  medicine  is  inevitably  based. 

"3.  He  inaugurated  the  plan  of  proving  drugs  up- 
on the  healthy  before  using  them  as  medicines  for 
the  sick. 

"4.  He  discarded  polypharmacy  as  unscientific. 

"5.  He  adopted  the  plan  of  using  the  single  renv 
edy  for  the  safe  and  speedy  cure  of  disease. 

"6.  He  made  war  against  bleeding,  blistering", 
purging,  administering  emetics  and  all  forms  of  un- 
necessary depletion. 

59 


"7-  He  defined  medicine  in  a  manner  comprehen- 
sive enough  for  all  time.  In  his  Lesser  Writings 
he  states :  'A  knowledge  of  disease,  a  knowledge  of 
remedies  and  a  knowledge  of  their  employment  (that 
is  for  the  cure  of  disease)  constitutes  medicine.  That 
definition  has  not  yet  been  improved  upon. 

"8.  He  reduced  the  size  of  the  dose  until  all  dan- 
ger of  aggravation  from  the  drug  was  removed.  He 
proved  the  possibility  of  successful  treatment  by  the 
administration  of  medicines  in  minute  quantities, 
and  when  the  fact  was  determined  there  was  a 
gradual  abandonment  of  the  'kill  or  cure'  doses  of 
the  ancients." 

The  Advantages  of  Homoeopathy. 

The  advantages  of  Homoeopathy  to  the  physician 
may  be  thus  summed  up : 

1.  The  emancipation  of  his  mind  from  doubt  and 
confusion. 

2.  The  provision  of  a  guide. 

3.  The  simplicity  of  the  means. 

The  advantages  to  the  patient  may  also  be  thus 
summed  up : 

1.  The  banishment  of  nauseous  drugs,  painful  and 
debilitating  measures. 

2.  Greatly  increased  efficacy  and  success. 

3.  Deliverance  from  medicinal  diseases  and  other 
destructive    consequences    of   former    methods    of 
treatment  requiring  months  and  years  to  eradicate. 

We  quote  the  following  from  a  prominent  writer 
on  Homoeopathy:  "Homoeopathy  fills  no  insane 
asylums  with  drug  wrecks ;  she  populates  no  alms- 
houses  with  mercurial  sufferers ;  she  inhabits  no 
dens  with  morphine  fiends;  she  infests  no  human 
frames  with  the  awful  disasters  of  the  hundreds  of 
drugs  that  might  be  named ;  she  vagarizes  no  brain 
with  the  fanciful  visions  and  vicious  tremens  of 
cocaine  and  alcohol.  She  comes  to  save,  not  to  de- 
stroy. She  comes  to  cure,  not  to  palliate."  What 
further  advantages  could  appeal'  more  forcibly  to  a 
patient  than  these? 

Our  Homoeopathic  Medical  Colleges. 

Our  institutions  of  learning  are  the  pride  of 
Homoeopathy  in  this  country.  Our  colleges  are 
located  in  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Balti- 
more, Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Ann  Arbor,  Detroit, 

60 


Minneapolis,  Chicago,  Iowa  City,  St.  Louis,  Louis- 
ville, Kansas  City,  Denver  and  San  Francisco.  It  is 
one  of  our  proud  boasts  that  our  school  has  ever  been 
in  the  lead  of  medical  education.  The  first  college 
to  establish  a  three  years'  compulsory  course  in 
medicine  was  a  homoeopathic  college,  and  it  ante- 
dated this  feature  of  old  school  instruction  by 
twelve  years.  A  four  years'  course  is  now  compul- 
sory in  all  our  colleges,  and  the  sessions  have  been 
lengthened  to  eight  and  nine  months  in  many  of 
them  with  a  minimum  requirement  of  seven  months. 
Three  of  our  colleges  are  connected  with  State  uni- 
versities, three  are  connected  with  other  universi- 
ties. Our  laboratory  facilities  are  equal,  and  in 
many  instances  superior  to  those  of  the  majority 
of  the  old  school  teaching  institutions.  Our  clinical 
facilities  are  represented  in  large  hospitals  connect- 
ed with  all  of  our  colleges.  There  is  an  esprit  de 
corps  among  our  students  not  found  elsewhere,  and 
the  classes  being  smaller  than  old  school  institu- 
tions students  are  brought  into  closer  relationship 
with  faculties  and  with  patients. 

Our  teaching  of  the  elementary  branches  of 
anatomy,  physiology,  chemistry,  physiological  chem- 
istry, hygiene  and  sanitary  science  is  in  the  most 
capable  hands.  It  is  said  of  us  that  we  pay  little  at- 
tention to  the  subjects  of  bacteriology,  pathology 
and  diagnosis.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the 
truth.  Our  teaching  in  these  branches  is  all  that  is 
taught  in.  any  medical  institution  of  the  country,  and 
far  beyond  this;  our  bacteriological  studies  extend 
beyond  the  mere  study  of  the  subject;  we  make  this 
important  topic  pay  a  rich  tribute  to  our  knowledge 
of  drug  action  in  the  treatment  of  disease.  Pathology, 
while  it  does  not  form  a  foundation  for  our  thera- 
peutics, is  studied  in  its  ever-changing  features  and 
helps  to  further  our  understanding  of  disease  and 
thus  pays  tribute  to  the  common  aim  of  our  system, 
namely,  to  cure  disease.  Diagnosis  is  not  studied 
with  us  to  merely  distinguish  one  affection  from  an- 
other, but  as  a  means  of  remedy  selection ;  we  make 
diagnosis  of  value  to  the  patient,  not  merely  a  satis- 
faction to  the  physician, — and  so  throughout  the 
vast  field  of  medical  learning.  In  most  of  our  col- 
leges women  are  admitted  on  equal  terms  with  men, 
and  in  New  York  we  have  a  college  alone  for  wo- 

61 


men.  There  is  no  college  in  the  homoeopathic  school 
that  a  student  would  make  a  mistake  in  attend- 
ing; though  few,  they  are  of  high  excellence 
and  standing.  Our  colleges  are  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  Intercollegiate  Committee  of  our  na- 
tional organization,  the  American  Institute  of 
Homoeopathy,  and  in  them  is  taught  all  that  pertains 
to  the  great  field  of  medical  learning  and  in  addi- 
tion thereto  homoeopathic  medicine. 

The  Literature  of  Our  School. 

The  literature  of  the  homoeopathic  school  is  a 
growing  and  efficient  one.  Our  chief  work  has  been 
done  in  the  field  of  the  study  of  drug  action  and  the 
fitting  of  the  same  to  disease.  In  every  field  where 
the  application  of  the  remedy  would  lend  aid  to  the 
cure  we  have  a  fine  literature;  in  all  the  specialties, 
in  surgery,  in  the  practice  of  medicine  in  all1  its  vari- 
ous branches,  we  need  not  go  out  of  our  school  for 
learned,  complete  and  up-to-date  works.  In  the  fix- 
ed branches  of '  chemistry,  anatomy  and  physiology 
we  rely  upon  the  standard  works  on  these  subjects 
from  whatever  hands  they  come.  We  have  our  own 
works  on  diagnosis,  urinalysis,  electricity  and  kin- 
dred topics.  .  Our  periodical  literature  is  a  praise- 
worthy one  and  gives  the  "abstract  and  brief  chron- 
icles" of  the  progress  of  general  medicine,  as  well 
as  that  of  our  own  system.  Our  research  literature 
is  an  imperishable  record  of  true  medical  progress. 
Our  societies  publish  transactions,  our  colleges  is- 
sue bulletins  and  journals,  our  hospitals  publish  re- 
ports and  statistics.  In  short,  all  the  field  is  occu- 
pied, and  well  occupied.  Our  libraries  contain  not 
only  the  works  of  our  own  school,  but  the  best  there 
is  in  medicine  in  other  schools. 

Therefore,  Choose  the  Homoeopathic  System. 

To  recapitulate  and  to  conclude:  We  maintain 
that  students  of  medicine  should  select  the  homoeo- 
pathic system  for  the  following  reasons : 

First.  It  offers  all  that  old  school  medicine  can 
offer  in  the  medical  field,  and  more,  since  it  adds 
thereto  a  knowledge  of  homoeopathic  medicine, 
Materia  Medica  and  therapeutics. 

Second.  It  is  a  scientific  system ;  its  practitioners 
are  possessed  of  knowledge  not  possessed  by  any 
other  one  system ;  its  colleges  and  teaching  facilities, 

62 


laboratories,  hospitals,  libraries,  journals — all  insti- 
tutions of  the  school — are  surpassed  by  none  in  the 
great  medical  field. 

Third.  It  offers  a  profession  that  is  not  over- 
crowded, fields  that  are  virgin,  opportunities  that 
are  waiting,  fame  and  fortune  to  be  won. 


List  of  Homoeopathic  Colleges. 


Boston  Universit}'  School  of  Medicine Boston,  Mass. 

Chicago  Homoeopathic  Medical  College   .......    Chicago,  111. 

Cleveland  Homoeopathic  Medical  College Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Denver  Homoeopathic  Medical  College Denver,  Col. 

Detroit  Homoeopathic  Medical  College Detroit,  Mich. 

Hahnemann  Medical  College  and  Hospital    ...'...    Chicago,  111. 
Hahnemann  Medical  College  of  the  Pacific    ....  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Hahnemann  Medical  College  and  Hospital Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Hering  Medical  College  and  Hospital Chicago,  111. 

Homoeopathic  Aledical  College  of  Missouri St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Kansas  City  Hahnemann  Medical  College Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Now  York  Homoeopathic  Medical  College  and  Hospital,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Xew  York  Medical  College  and  Hospital  for  Women    .    New  York,  N.  Y. 

Pulte  Medical  College Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Southern  Homoeopathic  Medical  College Baltimore,  Md. 

Southwestern  Homoeopathic  Medical  College Louisville,  Ky. 

University  of  Iowa  Homoeopathic  Medical  College  .  .  Iowa  City,  Iowa. 
University  of  Michigan  Homoeopathic  Medical  College,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 
University  of  Minnesota  College  of  Homoeopathy  .  .  .  Minneapolis,  Minn. 


Syracuso,  N.  Y 
PAT.  Ml  21.  1 901 


.374417 

\ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


